Whenever we enter a debate, the Linux community is divided in many aspects, one of them and not least, the philosophical issue.
When I started using Linux, I remember that my Windows 7 worked perfectly, I had not had any relevant problems, just curiosity led me to try distro after distro and stay with it for a long time.
I started a time when I parroted Stallman's words, being sure that this was the only truth and as almost always, when we believe that we have 100% of the truth, we are wrong, we are not able to see the real world, their needs and we become a kind of religious fanatics who, to a certain extent, are more concerned with software freedoms than human freedoms, which is exhilarating but true.
If I have learned something in recent years, it is that the truth depends on which side you look at, and that neither of us have it in its entirety.
Returning to what concerns us, not everyone uses Linux by philosophy, probably most do it for simple and mere convenience, among them, the convenience of modifying your system to your liking, the convenience of being able to use different desktops, optimization of the system, and many others out of simple and mere curiosity, that is why we must be cautious when we say such high-sounding phrases as:
"We must not forget the purpose of GNU!"
"Linux is a philosophy"
Serious, serious mistakes. Linux is not a philosophy, at least not anymore, the clear example is the number of companies that also have proprietary developments and use Linux for their needs, such as Oracle, AMD, Nvidia, Steam, Intel, IBM….
Even the popular party in my area uses Linux, out of necessity, because it doesn't have to renew lots of computers and simply because it covers everything that is done, so we cannot judge who does that
I use it because I like it, I have to admit that in these almost 3 years, I have been fixing dozens of things and I have had various problems, which have greatly exceeded those I had in Windows, and even so I still use it (drivers nvidia, amd, Intel, crashes of the de's, death of the X, programs that do not run).
I have learned that the freedom of the human being is above the freedom of software and I am going to explain myself. Many times I have heard this phrase, about proprietary software "proprietary software makes you a slave, would you allow people to become slaves?"
I'm going to demystify this. First, we cannot compare human freedom with a simple pc program, this is unfair and demagogic.
Second, unfortunately in human free will, there is also the possibility of taking freedom from other human beings, something that has happened thousands of times and unfortunately will continue to happen.
Third, proprietary software does not take away your freedom, it gives you an option, which in many cases is superior, because there is a company that is paying full-time developers (who have a family to feed) to create a software that meets all customer needs.
Everyone has the freedom to stop using what they use and change programs, there is no one person pointing to the hundreds for us to use a closed program.
Religions do exactly the same, they tell you that you have to do the good that they consider to be good, and they restrict your freedom to do something different from what they have indicated, let's not fall into religious fanaticism.
If you use Linux out of ideology, perfect, if you use it out of necessity, perfect, if you use it because you can't afford a Mac, perfect, let's not restrict the freedom of others.
The good thing about Linux is exactly this, that you can use it from the homeless man, the president of the United States, or a dictator of some Arab country, Linux is about freedom to do with it what you want, without anyone say this is right or this is wrong.
Unfortunately in the real world, the mentality that software is a product still prevails, and there is a charge for the use of this software, we may like it or not, but this is the model we live in, and going against it, is how to go against the world economic model.
If you want the model to change, you must propose a model, where the same people can continue to charge for the software and continue to pay their workers, and continue to make a profit, which is often not done.
Perhaps, how is a developer who creates a music application going to make money, just giving technical service, as he does Red Hat? Probably people will not pay for the technical service, since to listen to 4 songs, and have an organized music library, it is not necessary. And if that person wants to earn some money, even a pittance, how is he going to unlock the code?
Probably someone would come, take the code, improve it, and their application would surpass the original, with minimal effort, thus leaving the original creator at a competitive disadvantage, causing them to decide not to continue with development in the end, which It has happened many times, given the difficulty of monetizing small projects. (See Nuvola Player on Google).
Finishing, I like Linux and I recognize its defects and its qualities, I like Windows and I recognize its defects and some of its qualities, I like OS X and I recognize its defects and qualities, and I will use each one of them, according to the needs that have in the moment.
If I need to use Adobe Creative suite I will use it, if I need to use Microsoft Office, I will use it, if I need I will use Gimp or Inkscape, I will use them, because the most important thing is the freedom and productivity of the user.
Projects like Gimp would probably be more complete and “user friendly” today, if instead of discussing how bad the lords of Adobe are, we were making good donations to the project.
With this I say goodbye, live and let live.
You are mixing Linux and GNU, which are very different concepts.
I to what some call gnu linux, I just say linux and period.
To talk about a technical-computer subject I imagine that it does not matter if you call it GNU, Linux, GNU / Linux or Jose Maria. But for a post on philosophy, if you have to differentiate because they are different philosophies and it becomes a little serious analysis not to do so.
Well, to write in a blog you should be a more technical pokito, just a note
It's not being technical or not, I just don't think gnu should come first, and it's something that is supported by many companies that provide support, which only use the Linux suffix. You may like it or not, but it's my opinion.
You said it is your opinion, Linux is the kernel only and exclusively, it is only for people who start something, so that they know what they are talking about, apparently you are going hard
and gnu in this so, it's just a compiler and 4 libraries only and exclusively, and? By the time the transition from gcc to llvm is complete, what will be the excuse for calling linux, gnu?
as linus said:
Well, I think it would be justified, but justified if you create a GNU Linux distribution ... in the same way that I think "Red Hat Linux" is fine, or "SuSE Linux" or "Debian Linux", because if you make your own distribution You name it, but calling Linux in general "GNU Linux" is ridiculous.15
I answer for aki. Gnu without linux would be nothing, but linux without gnu would not stop being the work or the dissertation or the fun of a hacker from the University of Findlandia, so as they need each other, it is what there is (for now) . Or not because Mr. Stallman would have released his OS if or yes IBM had already bought the Minix core from Linus, that will never be known, the truth and I repeat is that the two coexist and are inseparable.
GNU without linux exists and is called HURD Linux without GNU? Android? Is there nothing of GNU in android?
To call Linux dry is like saying that I bought a Firestone, when in fact it is the tires of my Ford car. I can't ride without them, but my car is Ford
@morfeo, the comparison would have been correct, if you had said that in any case, Linux is the engine of the car.
Well, my car is a Volks Wagen with an AUDI engine, but I'm not bragging about my audi !!
@Morpheus. In Android there is nothing GNU. Only Linux and Google applications.
But then we should call it Linux, not Android!
@Morpheus:
@ eliotime3000 And why does that "religious fundamentalist" call him "Slackware"? I should just call it LINUX, if the only important thing is the kernel!
@Morpheus:
Regarding your first question, it was called Slackware based on the facilities that this operating system gave compared to its predecessor, Softlanding Linux Systems (RIP).
Regarding your second question:
Simple, because it is a distribution, and because it is a benevolent dictator for life. In addition, it is the longest active distribution that exists, and if it weren't for being the pioneer in terms of repository package management, it would not have existed.
@ eliotime3000 ironies aside, Patrick Volkerding has more rights to call YOUR operating system whatever he wants. What is not fair is to call Operating System to a simple kernel more than the GNU operating system.
To be clear: Torvalds does not develop and maintain a complete and functional OS, only a kernel for GNU.
The FSF has developed the GNU Operating System with its HURD kernel many years before Linux existed (I think Stallman's main problem is the "non-commercial" names he chose).
Well, I drop this discussion, I'm going for a ride in my VW / Audi.
Good luck and inform yourselves well before troll!
Well, there is Gnu / hurd, Gnu / Linux, GNU / kFreeBSD, when this Hurd is ready there will be no excuse to call GNU linux and in theory technically Android, it would be Android / Linux but everyone I know it as Android and if you know even what It has a linux kernel but many "linux" fans come out to shout from the rooftops ... android has linux !!! has linux !! and they say ... linux gained market share ... but it was really android which almost 70% is not free ...
I don't share anything you say. I give you an example: Ubuntu is a distribution based on GNU / Linux (or if you want to be more purist GNU with Linux). What we can't do is say "well we call it Linux and that's it" and forget about all the people who worked on GNU. You can add another kernel to GNU and that's it. But as they already say above, Linux without GNU is just a "work or thesis or the fun of a hacker from the University of Findlandia."
I always say GNU / Linux in writing, out of respect. When I talk about OS I usually say Linux to new people who don't know anything about it and GNU / Linux to users I know who know it. And always, and I have always said, I correct people when they say "linux" simply to refer to the complete operating system: GNU / Linux.
To Gnu you add another kernel, a bsd for example, and you lose the support of 90% of the hardware, gnome would stop working due to incompatibilities and not having been ported and thousands of other things. The nucleus is the most important part in a system, just as it is the most important part of a planet, it is the basis of everything.
Debian Gnu / Hurd:
http://www.debian.org/ports/hurd/
Gnome for Debian Gnu / Hurd:
http://packages.debian.org/hu/sid/hurd-i386/gnome/download
(... and then the word ignorance hurts)
@ pandev92 WTF? And if you take GNU from Linux, it's just a Finnish hacker's job. »GNU needs Linux and Linux needs GNU. Point. There's nothing more to speak of. And it is not that I am right at all, that is so and you know that it is so and we ALL know that it is so. You cannot despise a part of work just like that. Here's a joint work and it's called GNU / Linux. Ubuntu is a distribution based on GNU / Linux. Ubuntu is a Debian-based distribution that in turn is based on GNU / Linux. All of us who use any GNU / Linux distribution are using GNU / Linux-based distributions. My cat when he comes up to my table and notices that there is a cursor on my screen and he moves and tries to catch it, he is having fun with a cursor that is working in GNU / Linux. It's not hard to understand, really. Linus can say whatever he wants.
If you remove Gnu from Linux, the tools will simply be replaced by other bsd systems, as free bsd has done, stopping using gcc. But this is not the discussion.
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTEwMjI
IF you replace the BSD kernel with linux it would be a BSD with linux kernel, not a linux
Hey! from what I see when I hover over the icon of the little penguin (tux) in my user agent I see that it says "GNU / Linux x64" 🙂
I see it differently ... For me, the operating system is Linux, and most distributions include a series of applications developed or released under the FSF licensing system, GNU GPL. This is not why I have to put GNU before Linux just for the supposed recognition of developers.
On the other hand, when GNU is put before Linux I am not recognizing the work of the GIMP developer, or the GTK + developer, etc, etc, etc. No sir, by putting GNU before Linux I am giving credit to Richard Stallman and his foundation, which from the beginning is what has hurt the fat fundamentalist, that Linux takes all the credit and he (or his foundation) is put aside .
It is nothing but a deep burning in pride!
"What we can't do is say" well we call it Linux and that's it "and forget about all the people who worked on GNU"
But what if we can call it "GNU / Linux" and forget about all the other people whose programs are included in linux distributions (eg KDE, Gnome, LibreOffice, ...) and who are neither Linux Torvals nor work for GNU?
So if you want to be picky you would have to call it "xxx / yyy / yyy / abc / 123 / xyz / pqr / rst / uvw /… /… /… / Linux".
"What we can't do is say" well we call it Linux and that's it "and forget about all the people who worked on GNU"
But what if we can call it "GNU / Linux" and forget about all the other people whose programs are included in linux distributions (eg KDE, Gnome, LibreOffice, ...) and who are neither Linux Torvals nor work for GNU?
So if you want to be picky you would have to call it "xxx / yyy / yyy / abc / 123 / xyz / pqr / rst / uvw /… /… / GNU / Linux".
You can call it whatever you want, but nobody says that Linux (or GNU / Linux, Ubuntu, Fedora, Android or whatever you want to call it) is a philosophy, much less a religion. The one who says something like that, is because he has the concepts crossed or perhaps he never bothered to read carefully the material available in several languages on the Free Software Foundation site. Nor is GNU a philosophy or a religion, but simply an operating system inspired by the principles of free software, which has technological, ethical, political as well as philosophical aspects. The essential conclusions of your article are correct, but not for the reasons you mention.
pandev92, how can you tell linux (I also call it linux, period) if it is a religion, you can see it in the comments, what if it is a religion? Of course it is and what is more, it is fundamentalist, it is like the pig Catholicism of before the Middle Ages, it is like disgusting Islam. You just say something against the prophet (GNU or whatever) and they cut your eggs or set you on fire while you're still alive if they don't cut them up on the rack first.
Religion takes advantage of people's ignorance to manipulate them.
The philosophy of free software works exactly against that.
Perhaps the "fundamentalism and religion" of the "superior" software companies does not let them see reality.
The author article and your comment try to "dismember" those who do not think like you (in addition to Catholics and Muslims), without any foundation. Who is the religious?
What an ugly article, it seems that it was written by a child fan of windows: S
The only thing I agree with is that gnu / linux is not a religion, everything else is garbage.
good article, in some things I do not agree, but without a doubt I agree with the general message "linux is not a religion".
Excellent post. Undoubtedly, many people have fallen into this "religious fanaticism" that causes a community of users to disintegrate or not accept other points of view, becoming puritans or radicals. 🙂
They have lit a bonfire, but I agree with many of the things you say, I have always said that everyone uses what they want to wear.
I also like what @seba says «Defending an idea also makes you a slave to it, it is inevitable, this is the human being». I fully share this.
@ pandev92: I don't really understand what you mean by «. Linux is not a philosophy, at least not anymore, the clear example is the number of companies that also have proprietary developments and use Linux for their needs, such as Oracle, AMD, Nvidia, Steam, Intel, IBM…. »
Linux, It is based on a philosophy, that companies use it without any philosophy does not mean that it does not exist, at the end of all the "Philosophy" is a current, something that changes from person to person and each one adapts it to what it seems better.
Companies using linux without philosophy? that is absolutely normal, companies only use the current of "Mercantilism", and linux fits completely into this as it lowers costs, increases security, and gives them infinite knowledge that they can apply to their own developments. How many closed programs will not use ideas acquired from free software? or will they have free code, that we can't review? .. pss better not to mention.
Greetings and Excellent post
Excellent article! Very good vision.
Sorry, but from what I've read, it seems to me that you have a mental handjob on top that you don't clarify. I'm not a fundamentalist, far from it, people who use whatever they want, windows mac gnu / linux, whatever is most beneficial for each one. I have been using "GNU / LINUX" for more than 10 years and it seems to me that your approach is not correct. I understand the message but it is not correct (for me) what you say. You are putting GNU, LINUX and OPEN SOURCE in the same bag. And each one has their things. GNU is an (opensource) environment that runs on Linux, Linux is the core, and Open Source is open source software. Linux, the kernel, has exclusive parts in most of the distributions. On the other hand, there is free code that is sold and for which it can be bought, there have even been GNU / LINUX distributions that have been paid (so at a glance that Xandros, Linspire, Suse ... pe remember). The philosophy of opensource is not comparable to using a machine with a certain Operating System, that would be a very crude and simple comparison. The philosophy of opensource is based on programming something or modifying something for a common good. And I repeat, you can charge, if not tell my friend Jonhatan Thomas, creator of Openshot, who with kickstarter has taken out enough to dedicate himself for a season to what he likes. Simply what you call fundamentalists are those who defend the use of that free code because they believe that with it you can have a better society, if although it seems strange, free code influences a society.
And still, first I to Gnu linux, I simply call it linux, as linus torvalds would say, there is no reason for me to put gnu in front of it. Second, you give me the example of an application that has been funded by kickstarter ..., one ..., when you yourself know that it is not feasible for all applications to do that.
The philosophy of opensoruce is a practical philosophy, that of taking the code and being able to use it for one's own benefit, and generally the licenses that most support this practice are those that are used in projects such as chromium, wayland, x11 etc.
You are still wrong, in the end, benefit for the community, everything reverts to it, Free is not equal to free
I think you are wrong to focus it only on the community, torvalds said a year ago, about it:
In a way, I think that actually the ultimate achievement of Open Source is to have allowed everyone to be selfish, not to try to get everyone to contribute to the common good.
In other words, I don't see Open Source as that little message of "let's all sing the kumbaya around the fire and make the world a better place." No, Open Source only works if everyone contributes for their own personal and selfish reasons.
The original selfish reasons for collaborating with Linux centered simply on the fun of tinkering. That's what happened to me: programming was my hobby, my passion, and learning how to control hardware was my selfish goal. And as it turned out, he was not alone in that goal.
Don't take it personally, but to be the one talking about avoiding making it a religion, you know all the verses spoken by Linus.
Partially correct, that is the position of Mr. Linus, who apparently is the one with whom you focus best, but not everyone is like him or you, not like me or anyone else, each of us is different. Mr. Ritchie without whom we would not be speaking for aki, did not think that, neither Mr. Stallman nor Maddog, nor…. With this I do not want you to think that I identify with them, far from it, each one will have their own decisions and motivations, but if within that motivation is to work collaboratively with more people and that, for example, people who do not benefit They would have access to technology, to underdeveloped countries, even to people like you and me, don't tell me there is something wrong with that. If you from your position on a blog or I myself from mine can help and collaborate in the grain of sand that we can contribute, what is wrong with that?…. But for that we must be a little serious and not mix things up, we must "inform", and not dedicate ourselves to continually trolling ourselves that if gnu / linux or linux (as you and Mr. Linux calls it) is this or that, if it is a religion or a philosophy. Linux is not a philosophy or a religion, but GNU, without being a philosophy, can seem so because it believes in the community in its bug reports, in its innovation in its contributions, without asking for anything in return, well yes ... a good OS.
What you say seems very curious to me:
«I began a time when I parroted Stallman's words, being sure that this was the only truth and as almost always, when we believe that we have 100% of the truth, we are wrong, we are not able to see the real world »
Luckily you no longer follow the word of Mr. Stallman, but from what I see in your comments you do follow the word of Mr. Linus Torvalds.
AH .. Fundamentalist for Torvalds, but not for Stallman.
We all have our ideas and this post asks for respect, but it disrespects many concepts, ideas and characters without which this post wouldn't even exist
Not at all @morfeo, I am not a fundamentalist of torvalds, in many things he says I do not agree and much less with his trolls outputs, but here we are not discussing whether linux is called gnu linux, linux, or just ubuntu. Here we are discussing something else, so please do not divert the subject.
And what is that other thing? That's what the article talks about, the blissful "fundamentalisms" (at least it has that label).
Is it necessary to write a complete article to say "I'm going to think how I want to"? That goes without saying. What is not understood is why they waste their time misinforming (there are many lies, such as that redhat only gives technical service: REDHAT IS PAID (free is Fedora)). This is not religion, or beliefs, or anything like that: it is pure computer science and source code, in addition to the search for a more coherent legislation than the current one. It is to be aware of the dangers of proprietary software (and that it is already more than in sight, with Snowden and the NSA, that the "fundamentalist" Stallman was right) What is the goal? because there is already a string of articles trying to impose these strange thoughts on this blog
The truth is, and I hope you take it constructively, the way you address your readers does not seem correct to me shows a lot of lack of respect. I imagine that you are young and that is corrected with age and knowing that you learn more by listening (reading in this case) than by speaking (writing).
What I pay attention to Stallman is to use the least amount of proprietary software possible for privacy and especially backdoors (Prism and other things), but from there to become a fanboy or go door to door ...
No thanks.
The problem is that many people confuse means with end.
For many, using Linux is an end and they pride themselves on it. On the other hand, there are people who simply use what allows them to save more time. Many times we forget that a PC is nothing more than an instrument to carry out some tasks and a tool to make life easier in general.
In my case, I use Linux because I like free software, and it seems like a very good philosophy that could (or should) be transferred to different areas of our lives. But also, I use Linux because it saves me time to enjoy other things and I am more productive than in any other OS.
As you say, Linux has flaws and many times you have to fight with them. But it is what it means to use something free.
A greeting!
In the same way, it also happens with open source, although that is seen more as a tool than as a medium.
About the post itself:
You also propose that what you call Linux does not offer any economic alternative to current neoliberal capitalism, and that in order to end something first, you must have an alternative. I do not know if you have read "The wealth of network", this work gives theoretical arguments about an economy like the one that emerges from "linux" and offers practical data that support the thesis, "Linux" does offer an alternative. And although the absence of an alternative did not offer it, it is not a reason to end a previous status quo, let me explain: during World War II the Poles fought against the Nazis and alongside the Russian Soviets, even knowing that the Russians were not a people. historically "friendly" with them (and as it was later seen during their membership in the USSR) because even if they did not have an alternative it was better to eliminate cancer and then they would see what they did, the absence of an alternative is not a reason not to remove A tumor.
If you confuse the linux kernel, and GNU the complete operating system with a whole philosophy and goal behind it, linux is for like who writes this article, people who just want to try and use other operating systems, explore, experiment and respectable.
But Free Software has an objective background, that's why OpenSource etc. was born.
Linux is like linux, a geek with a lot of free time, and GNU and free software is like for those who want a better world, free, etc. For something, characters like RMS are involved and support various social and pro-freedom causes, and although with these characters don't agree on everything at least it gives you a background and an objective and not just "it's free and I'm curious"
If it is religious fanaticism, because Gandhi was imprisoned for his ideas in a world where it is necessary to understand "needs and tastes", Luther King died for his "religious fanaticism" to see civil rights, like Malcom X and even Bakunin, Barry Horne, Emma Goldman etc.
People who were imprisoned or died for their ideas, for ideas of a more just and better world, not more comfortable, not prettier, or they were not only there out of curiosity but for ideas of change that are often needed.
The boy is confused, he mixes individual freedom with free code.
Neither do you have the absolute truth on the subject ... Respect their opinion just as you can respect yours. Concepts such as individual freedom are personal to each individual. They are not objective concepts and cannot be measured or used objectively ...
I agree with Karlinux, even if you respect another person, you may not respect his idea because it is incorrect, if now I tell you that 2 + 2 = 5, even if you respect me, you will tell me that I am wrong, and if I tell you that it is my opinion and is it as valid as yours? Not all opinions are valid, and I think there is an incorrect theoretical background in this post, as you yourself have pointed out.
Pretty bad example. Mathematics fulfills some basic principles and does not just leave room for opinion. If I tell you that 2 + 2 = 4 you can tell me that for you the number 4 is called five. But you can never say that 2 + 2 = 5 since reality does not correspond to that equation.
I understand your idea but the example does not work.
Mathematics complies with axiomatic principles that are universally accepted because without them there would be no formalism like the one there is. Therefore the opinion is outside of mathematics, at least at that level.
Well, that's what I said, that user freedom cannot be compared or measured or confused with code freedom, that concepts cannot be confused, anyway I already apologized below in case someone felt bad about my comments.
You don't have to apologize for anything, man. We are talking in a healthy way and without bad faith.
This is precisely the attitude that I despise, the attitude of the inquisitor of the holy see, who believes he has the absolute truth, and can guide poor sinners to the light or burn you at the stake.
What contempt, I do not despise you! Far from it, if I did, I would not be writing what I write, if it has bothered you, I'm sorry, it would simply make you realize that you were probably mixing things and apparently I am not the only one, but what I said was not my intention to offend you, If I have, I apologize, nor do I want what I say to go to mass, not at all. My opinion is my opinion just like yours, nothing more. But if for giving my opinion you cross me out of it, I would look at my navel a little. If that's why I'm a fanatic, well sorry, I think not, in fact I use windows on the laptop and I'm not traumatized, and I'm not a gamer and I don't need it for work. But what I said, I think I have not offended anyone, but if I have done it, I am sorry
Well, I'm with you, he's confusing everything and has a huge mental straw. Maybe they are effects of using Windows 8 ...
And the freedom to know what companies do with my data is not individual?
Let's not push the issue to this extreme either. Comparing Richard Stallman to people like Bakunin seems like a huge exaggeration to me. Please, we are talking about a work tool, not the work itself or the freedom of the human being ...
It is not very different what both indicate.
If through software they are monitoring and controlling all humanity, is it not about the freedom of the human being?
@xex, @morfeo and @Distopico Vegan I answer the three of you in the same comment for simplicity.
@xex: What people like Bakunin, Proudhon or Kropotkin, fathers of anarchism, said, does not go along the same lines as what RMS says. They deny the authoritarian entities and argue their reasons. Free software does not violate these power structures. At no point is anarchism cited in free software or authority questioned. The Open Source philosophy does not prevent the creation of companies and therefore from my point of view, it does not prevent the control that these can exercise over our lives. The fact that I can see the code of an application that a company offers is not going to prevent me from being controlled in other ways such as marketing.
@morfeo: What I mean by my comment is, as I have already said, that free software is not going to prevent governments, companies and economies from continuing to control our lives. At least, that's the way I see it.
@Dystopico Vegan: I'm not saying that I don't share your opinion that free software has an influence that breaks some of the chains that society imposes on us. What I meant by my comment is that what Stallman is after is far below what people like Bakunin were after. The latter's speech is much broader and in many more sectors than Stallman's. That is why I say that we cannot compare the two. They both support freedom, yes, but not on the same level. I was just referring to that.
It is clear that the Open Source philosophy, from my point of view and from yours I suppose also, is a small step to bring people shared values with the freedom of which the anarchists spoke. I use Debian because it is the distribution that has a social manifesto behind it and that makes me proud. I will continue to defend free software whenever possible, but it is also true that it is a small patch against a poorly formulated society from the ground up. You already understand me ...
A pleasure to share this conversation with you 😉
a tool with a lot of power, like the television, like the mass media, like religion things that characters like Bakunin talked about and boycotted, many attack commercial television and are called "tools", some attack monsanto who are also "tools" but really each one has its own background and social power.
Don't mention it but you read my mind and I agree with 99.99%, personal freedoms change due to the environment in which one operates, perhaps the system proposed by GNU does not apply to everyone, but to a few, the GNU OS / Linux is the best there is, that's true, you just have to know how to choose the right hardware to work according to your needs, that is, you have to seek harmony as Buddhists do.
Example: I have to use visual studio in virtualized mode with win 7, neither of them is bad, but I put my need for a GNU / linux distro before the requirement of having a partition or a hard disk only for Windows, Although that is in the case of my laptop, on my desktop there is a Windows 8 to kill the leisure time playing COD, Crysis and all those games that do not run 100% in GNU / Linux, does that kill my freedom to choose? ??, for nothing, gives me alternatives to the deficiencies of the OS in this case
In many respects I agree with you. What's more, I'm using GNU / Linux because I have a better chance of reviving an outdated PC with Slackware than with Windows XP.
Now, the problem is that if you lock yourself in a paradigm, you become an absolute intellectual hermit, something that many fanboys are doing, and you don't realize that there are millions of paradigms that are getting stronger, among them, "easy" .
What I am against proprietary software is that, if they really want to defend their copyrights, they would do so by vetoing the software that they should legally sell no matter what country they are in, but as those of us with little purchasing power, they are forgive us for pirating proprietary software and thus becoming so dependent on them that we allow ourselves to build a manners paradigm that roots us in that "only great software" there is.
Regarding free software, I admit that it is the best in terms of philosophy and quality, but in many cases, when it comes to developing a decent replacement for proprietary software, they get it wrong and the truth is that it earns the contempt of the that continue to use proprietary software, since it does not generate an experience in which they can sustain their use (the best known case is gnash and the distros approved by the FSF).
With Windows, I admit that sometimes, it is a mess (NTFS, UAC, cheap spyware such as WAT), but in case of living in a place where it has fallen into manners such as Peru, unfortunately it is quite painful the transition from going from Windows to GNU / Linux, because if you don't show him that free software doesn't do exactly the same and / or better than its proprietary counterpart, he's not going to quit.
I agree as to just naming it Linux. Not long ago I had seen a graph where they showed how much percentage of GNU there was in a distro (I don't remember which one) and it was only 8% of the total. In that case we should name the distros something like GNU / Linux / Xorg / KDE for each relevant part of the system.
And the% of linux?
Here the article:
http://pedrocr.pt/text/how-much-gnu-in-gnu-linux/
In Ubuntu:
From GNU there are 8% (+ 5% from Gnome, which is an official part of the GNU project!)
Of kernel (Linux) there are 9% (Hardly a difference)
The rest is from others (mozilla, java, xorg)
Now is an OS a distro?
not necessarily. The system can work perfectly without xorg, without java, without mozilla, without gnome, etc.
We are left with only Gnu and Linux, which form a complete and functional OS. Can they work without the other?
Yes, there is HURD (GNU's own kernel) and there is Android (which has Linux, but not GNU)
Can I just call GNU / Hurd Hurd?
It would not be logical, the normal thing would be plain GNU, which is the name of the OS.
Should I call Android Android / Linux?
If you want, but it is normally called Android, which is the name of the OS.
Then someone answer me, why do we have to call GNU (/ Linux) LInux simply when GNU is the OS and Linux is one of its kernels?
good article, it serves for the discussion and strengthening of basic concepts such as gnu, linux and opensource ... this feeds my knowledge I like kde that's why I use linux
Flame vulgar as always when you write something and at the end the now classic: «Let me think and do whatever I want, I'm Windowslerdo and iBorrego and what do they care ...»
Even the user agent betrayed me ... conspiracy !!!
It is a headache to manage the user-agent in Google Chrome.
http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130330024105/horadeaventura/es/images/8/88/No_me_digas_XDDDD.jpg
People who say you say "linux" or "gnu / linux" without even knowing what the definition of operating system is, come on, read first.
And in case you ask me what the definition of operating system is, there is not one, in books I found at least 4, in the wiki depending on which article you read or in which language the definition changes.
if we take that an operating system is the kernel, linux wins
if we take that an operating system is the whole "package" that they "sell" to you, then ubuntu, gentoo, etc. win.
if we take that an operating system is the kernel plus other "fundamental" tools then gnu / linux wins
and the discussion can go on forever and ever. do not be so automatons that it is everything or 1 or 0, in real life there may be different truths or ways of seeing things.
coming out of that, I congratulate the author for trying to write something like that, but the Taliban are there, and they do not forgive, good luck answering all the extremists who are going to write you beautiful points of view that do not allow a comma to move them 🙂
Life in Christ is not religion, religions are repetitive and box the intelligence of his followers, Christ said:
«I am the way, the truth and the life, nobody comes to the father but it is for me»
John: 14: 6
"You will know the truth and the truth will set you free" Jn: 8:32
"Because God loved the world (the human race) in such a way that he gave his only begotten son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish BUT have eternal life" Jn: 3:16
Christ loves you, seek him while he can be found.
"I have learned that the freedom of the human being is above the freedom of software" very well said, a greeting
If through software they are monitoring and controlling all humanity, is it not about the freedom of the human being?
WTF?
It seems that you did not understand the joke in reference to Orwell.
This surveillance through software ends up disconnecting the internet, and, if they are watching you, it restarts when you reconnect, and that happens regardless of the operating system you use. Freedom is in your fingers, not in the operating system you use.
If you can read the code, you can know what it does! If you know what it does, you have the freedom to choose to use it or not. Freedom IS in the software you use, not in my fingers, but in the fingers of who programmed the software. Why do so many people like to discuss topics that they have little idea? Do they know anything about programming?
My mother, but what an idiotic answer. All right, morpheus, honor your nickname and take a break.
«What an idiotic answer» OK, then those of us who defend the SI are intolerant. There are more closed minds than windows itself!
Totally agreed!
Maybe you should take ESO off before installing GNU / Linux.
I don't know how such aberrations are allowed to be published.
And about the opinions: For tastes of colors, and for garbage containers.
Ban the infidels XD hahaha.
Ban those who do not spread the Open Code. greetings from Mexico.
As a linux user I like open source and everything that it represents. Although I am not programming, I know that open source is like the printing press in the dark ages.
don't fight over the little ones, this is about adding and not dividing.
Well, the author of the article puts that barrier between the "religious fundamentalists" who support the philosophy of Free Software and the "super free" who have the "freedom" to also use their beloved proprietary software.
I DO NOT understand, what is wrong with commercial software, which is much very different from proprietary, proprietary is understood as something that does not allow you, that does not allow you when in reality it fulfills its function, right?
Only its function? What is "its function"? How do you know there is nothing wrong with it if you don't know what it really does?
And nobody says that the bad thing is that it is commercial. There are many commercial and free programs (RedHat, Suse, or the ones I make, for example).
It is proprietary because:
- it does not let you run it wherever and however you want
- does not let you know how it works and what it does internally
- does not let you share it with whoever you want, wherever you want
- it does not let you modify it at your leisure and share those modifications with whoever you want.
Is it so "bad, fundamentalist, religious" to believe that it IS NOT ETHICAL (nor should it be legal) to market proprietary software licenses?
Is it so "bad, fundamentalist, religious" to want other people to see this and make them realize how unfair this situation is?
Who has a closed mind? Why should new users flee because of this?
Hahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Well, as you say, I only know that if I see people like you on the street then I stand aside and continue on my way, as if I was walking with all the time to modify, read the code etc, hahahahahaha seriously, thanks for cheering me up the day that already ends.
But I'm not saying that you have to see all the code.
I say they should not ban it
Well, they don't have to force you to show it either, right?
And why, for example, are food producers "forced" to show what ingredients they make them with?
Could you sell a PC without telling the customer what processor and memory it has?
Would you buy a car if the manufacturer prohibited you from opening or modifying it at will?
Oh, and by the way you say that "if I see people like you on the street then I step aside"
How do you imagine me, like a Muslim terrorist with a turban and guns and all? Just because it seems good to have the code of the programs I use available?
The proprietary software evangelists are doing their job right demonizing us!
@Morpheus:
Red Hat is a tremendous curmudgeon regarding the distribution of free and / or open source software in countries such as North Korea and Cuba (including the help by IRC), but the truth is that companies like Red Hat like Novell are commercial in scope, so you can include blobs specially made for those commercial purposes.
@ eliotime3000
In fact, practically all distros have those BLOBS (they are in the Torvalds kernel) except linux-libre. As for what you comment on RedHat, it shows that Free Software has nothing to do with communism, nor is it against "commercial purposes." SL is much more capitalistic than proprietary software (capitalists can buy and sell the products they want without restrictions, proprietary software cannot)
FREE IS DIFFERENT FROM FREE, how else is there to explain that?
Poor Stallman with English !!
Commercial software is not the same as proprietary software. Free software can also be commercial. Proprietary software is one that restricts one or more of the four freedoms: use, modification, distribution and improvement of the software. There is proprietary software that can be used and distributed for free, but none can be freely modified or improved, because that would require the source code.
That's right, my friend, this tremendous bullshit that they put together for an article with which I very much agree is the kind of thing that makes future Linux users run away, whether GNU is ahead or not.
The worst thing about fans is that they have no sense of humor ...
if linux were a religion, surely it would not be in it, given my atheism and well the commandments of St.IGNUcious are a bit absurd.
Until he finally says something that is very fanboy Fran, what happened to him? who hit him? or where do I copy this? I don't think you have thought about it ... xD already seriously well said!
Naming some monsters that come out today GNU / linux seems an aberration to me, that's why I end up calling them just Linux (except Debian) ... I'm sorry for the purists who want to recognize Stallman's work ... but I wouldn't like to add the word GNU to distros that by default bring DRM, firmwares and closed blobs or make you "commercial suggestions" (a euphemism for adware).
1) WE ARE ALL SLAVES AND STALLMAN AS MUCH AS YOU OR ME. He is a slave to his ideals, he is a slave to his views, he is a slave to his morals, he is a slave to his ethics. Stallman (like any other guru), all he does is perpetuate that mental slavery by changing morality but never getting rid of it, which creates another herd with a different pattern. True freedom lies in thinking with more than one point of view and eternally contradicting oneself but without discarding paths because what is false for one morality is true for another. You have to kill the gurus.
2) Another form of slavery is needs. Have you ever seen Maslow's pyramid? The needs of each man are divided into 5 levels and to complete a level, all the lower levels must be completed. If freedom is at the top of the pyramid (assuming freedom leads to happiness), then every need is a chain. But there are certain chains that, when broken, kill the individual (those of the first level, physiological needs). Therefore, the concept that "freedom is not having chains" collapses because of what I say.
Let's not talk about freedom. Let's talk about dependencies.
"We must kill the gurus" who says? Doesn't this statement seem very "guru" to you?
It was said by a person who was not looking for followers. Zarathustra.
@Tina Toledo putting a +1 in 3, 2, 1 ...
I strongly agree, I believe in the free coexistence of free software with proprietary software on my Linux.
Nobody is free .. as human beings .. the fact of being human beings (and believing that we can against the primary instincts of survival) make us be locked in that circle (of course with certain differences)
But what free software proposes is utopian but beautiful .. the truth .. around that philosophy communities are created where even though everyone is like zombies saying "I am free I am free" (while sitting at home on a computer all day. . "Ironically") we know that at least some of us can be trusted.
That the community has the power not to need (at least not 100%) companies thirsty for money and power.
That we can try to trust .. in this new world where .. technology and the internet have been a great leap in life .. .. at least we can trust (or half) that there are people who do it sincerely without wanting to hope to get us out something in return .. if not for the simple fact of wanting to help others .. so cute ..
And philosophy is important .. because it is culture .. the world revolves around culture .. ..
Where would we go without the culture we have ... we want to be free even if it is on the internet but I am sure that it is not only the internet ... that those of us who seek that are also in solidarity with our fellow men ... capable of helping another without anything else in return .. it is part of our lifestyle .. although they are only computers and numbers .. they are like extensions of several of us and it is normal that we seek to control them well .. but there we have to be realistic and not say things like «I am free .. now I use linux »» and spend all day on a computer ignoring the family, or life events that would make us happy (except for those who work on this ... whether they are programmers or demaces ... you do they have excuse xD)
I think that in some passages you confuse freedom of the human being with freedom of choice in a consumption system.
Summary for those who do not want to read so much: Free software shows a lot of potential with different modes of production and that is precisely what is interesting.
If something that free software proposes is precisely a new software production system. This system (very self-managed and managed by the developers themselves) is overshadowed by how some companies take advantage of this type of system, but it is also true that these same companies have adapted to how it works in this way. It does not mean that they stop being capitalists, because their production system is the same and that the software is "free" mainly lies in the fact that it is there for anyone to take and modify.
If you look at production models contrary to capitalism, they will see in free software a good way to carry out the system that they themselves propose (with gray tones, of course) and that they tried unsuccessfully to implement at some minute in history. (Although you have to go to the XNUMXth century to see that, perhaps). One of the basal ideas of these models contrary to capitalism / neoliberalism (fundamentally taken from the base of the left) states that when those who work take possession of the work tools and the decisions about what to do with them, the productive "ecosystem" will have better performance, greater freedom for the people who work to carry it out (freedom does not mean laziness) and therefore the whole process will be better (including that you will not only do it because it is your job, but because you like it, a fundamental thing in the free software and that we can live day by day on this page and I assume that it is you and my encouragement to share these words).
I agree 100% that free software is not a religion and it should not be, but figures like Richard Stallman do a disservice, who with his pros and cons does not play much in his favor when we try to understand how free software can play a role. fundamental in people's lives, influencing not only through software, but also being a living example of different production models (with all the good and bad it has). Always the figures that overshadow all the rest will not bring us anything good, regardless of the side. In general, a lot of power falls on their words or actions, since there are many more who can be present to a greater or lesser extent.
What you say about that there are people who work in a common work with free software is very true, but I do not know if it is the majority that can say that. Look at any repository site to see how many are personal projects that a type X does in a Y place, without contributors or with 1 or 2. That is also free software, but without lights like the kernel or any large project. Probably with little global impact as well, but perhaps with a strong local impact (if you have been, you can probably imagine how powerful a tool developed by a guy 5 years later at a very different latitude can be).
The subject of free software has nothing to do with religion (in the sense of belief in gods), but with politics. To have a more general panorama, it is enough to walk through the fundamental ideas of socialism (since you are from Spain, I think you should be clear that the PSOE is not socialism, much less the Russian, Chinese, etc. experiments that are based on a pure and capitalist plain making use of the State to carry out its purpose) to find many more nuances of how free software does propose a different political conception (or at least, it carries it out, without thinking so much about what politics is, but what it's the best for people). Unfortunately, in my opinion, I believe that there is still no understanding on the part of the majority of those involved that these things have a connection, perhaps because of how complex both views are and because of the prejudices that may exist on both sides, but look no further. who are the ones who have supported free software and anti-surveillance policies and you will realize what we are talking about.
A greeting. Congratulations for this reflection and I hope they are more frequent! Sorry for my extension.
Bravo! You can say higher, but not clearer.
Would you be so kind as to explain this sentence: «Serious, serious mistakes. Linux is not a philosophy, at least not anymore, the clear example is the number of companies that also have proprietary developments and use Linux for their needs, such as Oracle, AMD, Nvidia, Steam, Intel, IBM…. »? I really don't understand your argument.
It is clear that Linux is not a philosophy, it is an OS, however, if it has an inescapable philosophical foundation. Philosophy is not something that you have or not, philosophy is a position, an interpretation of reality. Without your knowing it, you are already maintaining a philosophical position, it is called "utilitarianism."
And, please, do not confuse philosophy and religion, there cannot be things more contrary.
It depends on what each one understands by "linux", within the classics it is a package (GNU / LINUX / DISTRO) or it refers to a person, its creator,
It seems to me that the fsf has a definite position, regarding a certain implication of a general condition, that based on its ideals, you can consider a philosophical thought, each distro has certain currents or guidelines, to those positions, we can consider « philosophies ».
But it all depends on what the words mean to each
It is true that each distro also has its own philosophy, but we are talking about the use of the software from the user's point of view, for example I am using manjaro, which comes with proprietary programs and except for flash, I think I don't have any proprietary programs now because I have been doing cleaning.
It would be good if everything were free, but the current situation is not such, there is very good free software for some things, but in certain areas, where software is really expensive and necessary, it is an eral, there is no equivalent and the proprietary is very good and there are people who need to use them; (.
Because there is the other, you specialize in something, you use a lot of time of your life, and you follow a certain line of thought, framed in a philosophy, and the problem arises, you exercise as what you are, or using proprietary software, for which you are going to having to dedicate a lot of time of your life to others to achieve it and to be more or less efficient. or you stay behind watching everyone go by and you stay further behind.
Perhaps the complete adobe suite is expensive, but perhaps the complete suite multiplied by a couple of times is not enough for an application module, of very restricted applicability, or rather, not of general use that can give you a substantial advantage, about a pair. but you're going to have to spend more time (it's like paying taxes, how many days of the year do I have to work to pay the state) and it's exclusive (because I don't have access to binaries), I'll burn in the hell of MS.
It is easier to see the grain of sand that is far away than the mountain that is in front of you. People like Stalman are necessary, but the world in itself is not fair. and most of the people are mean and selfish more than average and median. Peace and love is until you have children, or you have to knock on many doors for a job or your purchasing power goes up.
When I have time I write all the code I can, document it and share it, I try to help in real and virtual life. But I can't stop using the office, I can't leave windows, and so on, much more, and most of it is not because I want it, but because it is simpler, (it leaves me more time to be lazy and write code).
regards
On the Pidgin download page there is a button to download the installer that says "Other Linux" ...
http://www.pidgin.im/download/
… In Mozilla Forefox a download column is headed with the title «Linux»….
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/all/
… In Muy Linux I see an article whose heading reads «SyncDrive, a new Google Drive client for Linux appears on the scene»
http://www.muylinux.com/2013/09/14/syncdrive-google-drive-linux/
Does the fact that the Pidgin and Firefox installers say only Linux, instead of GNU / Linux, make them dysfunctional files? Is the article written by MetalByte invalid because in its header it announces that SyncDrive is for Linux instead of GNU / Linux?
There is nothing like writing a topic stating that Linux is not a religion so that the Zadokites themselves come to debate the form: “Blasphemy! In our Torah it says GNU / Linux… so GNU / Linux must be! »
"No other interpretation should be given, as that would confuse the people ..." they affirm.
Already entered into technicalities from now on when they call me Toledo I will not turn to see ... it does not matter that I am the only Toledo in that place and it is understood that it is about me. The reason? Well, my father is Toledo, my brother is Toledo, my cousins are also Toledo. It does not matter that I am the only one present in that place, if they do not call me Argentina Toledo and I will not turn to see ...
Do you really think that 99.9% of proprietary software users are interested in reading the OS codes they have installed on their PCs? Do you really think that it is a question that worries you when you have other more important problems, for them, to solve?
Until when will they realize that a license to use an operating system is just another product like anything else?
I have seen that they put examples so coarse that by themselves they fall:
1.- Would you buy a car that can only circulate in a certain area and that you cannot tune to your liking? From the outset, who told you that a car freely where we feel like it? I have a Van that I haven't used for months, why? because she is yankee and I cannot move freely with her in Mexico unless I legalize her in this country.
Have I tuned it? Yes. But I have done it to the same degree as my Windows, because the engine, if I change it, I have to do some legal procedures to notify that the old engine no longer belongs to me and that now I have another one, so that implies renew the registration card because it, with the serial number of the old engine, no longer works for me. This procedure has a cost. Not to mention the chassis ...
Ah, but I can sell it! Sure, but when I sell it, the car is no longer mine ... I no longer have any rights to it. Like my Windows.
Of course, the new owner must go to notify the local traffic department that the car whose engine serial xxxxxx and whose chassis and body serial number yyyyyy now belongs to him and is no longer mine.
But ... wait! I can take my vehicle to an auto mechanic and ask him to analyze it and build one just like it. Finally I have a car that in addition to being the same as the previous one is better ... I just have a big problem: I need the engine, the chassis and the body to have their own serial number so that I can circulate with the car legally because without license plates. I can't even get to the corner without earning a fine and probably even jail for not being able to prove the origin of my vehicle. Same as my Windows.
2.-The architect who designed my house sold me the construction plans, therefore they are mine and I can copy them and give them to whoever I want.
Yes, that is true. Only there is something that I do not take into account, the plans are not only a series of diagrams and construction and facilities diagrams, they are also a legal document signed by an expert whose professional license legally authorizes him to assume all civil and criminal responsibility for a bad structural calculation. But in addition, those same plans are not useful for me to build if I do not process a construction permit before a municipal, county or corresponding authority… and that is precisely what those plans signed by the expert are for.
The authority gives me the permit and keeps a copy of those plans. If someone tries to request a new permit to build on another land, those plans are no longer accepted. But why? Simple and simply because the expert who signed the plans can only be legally responsible for a single construction and therefore his signature cannot be extended or valid for other cases.
Then there are only two options ... not to use those plans or to require the expert and pay him again to legalize the plans again with another firm.
Pandev and fellow bloggers. Excuse me if what I have written is out of place or does not agree with the point to be made ... but the truth is that I needed to say it.
Thank you
TIna, as soon as elav or nano, they pass, they accept the comment ehehe, xdd as it has a lot of links, it is awaiting approval.
All the best
My respects to Tina for giving a short software modeling class (even if only through analogies). The truth is that if one does not know the development models of software modeling, as well as if it is free software, many doors will open for you and you will immediately understand how each software is developed based on the release cycle. Not for fun, those who contribute their lines of code to free and / or open source software are part of it, but they also learn how software is actually developed.
It is not simply for mere philosophy, but it is for cognitive reasons and other reasons that you may not know, but that free software is better than proprietary software, it is because it allows you to be part of it and does not exclude you as the proprietary software.
No one asks that proprietary software users should be interested in "reading the codes", it is that those few of us who are interested DO NOT HAVE THE POSSIBILITY OF DOING IT.
In example 1 of the car: The restrictions you speak of are LEGAL RULES of the society where you live, NOT IMPOSITIONS OF THE MANUFACTURER. It is NOT the same as your dear Windows:
- You cannot tune your windows, just change some «accessories»
- You CANNOT SELL IT to your windows, you bought a USE LICENSE only for your computer.
- You CANNOT OPEN your windos for a mechanic to analyze
- You can change your engine and legalize it without the consent of the manufacturer, your windows NO.
In example 2 of the plan:
- You have the plans and you know what your house contains
- You can use them to build an identical house (with a new one, signature, legalization, or whatever, but it has nothing to do with the builder of the house)
- They cannot sell you a "closed" house, forbidding you to know how it is built
Good comment, but by defending an idea you also become a slave to it, it is inevitable, that is the human being.
Exactly, right now Pandev is being a slave to his philosophy xD
The only thing this article gets right is that the linux kernel is not a religion (which if it were it would require many years of study to begin to understand it). I have no idea what documents about what free software is you have read to unfortunately confuse the concepts of GNU, the kernel and free software, I can see you programming the c cursing the compiler for not understanding the bash instructions bareback.
I am very idealistic, I like to imagine a world where we do not focus our energies on personal interests, where we are all programmers.
Because in the virtual world the programmers are our rulers, you accept programs made by others, or you accept them.
Unless you were a programmer, you would modify the source code or build your own program. And I think that little aspects of human knowledge like programming have the potential to change the world. That is why the availability of the source code seems very important to me.
I believe that as free beings the ethical thing is that our actions are focused on guaranteeing the freedom of others, because this is where I find justice.
Justice seems to me a more important value than freedom.
For there to be true freedom in society, it is the obligation of all people to seek the conditions so that the individual can be more free, such as giving as you receive, sharing ideas, teaching how things work (almost Linux teaches you, of course, one he learns it by reading)
I don't try to guide myself with everyday life, with what is useful. I always tend towards the ideal. If I did not guide my actions to my ideals, I would be in great contradiction.
That is why I always look for free software in its proper measure, because it seems to me that it is what most tends to the ideal.
Applause!
It seems very unfair to me how pandev92's opinion is "appreciated" (after all, there in the tag it says OPINION).
It is an interesting point of view, perhaps he did not know how to capture it well and hence the discords but, come on, this blog is like a table with cups of coffee where everyone exposes their ideas, thoughts, points of view, etc. and debate them, calm, like old men.
About calling the OS GNU / Linux, I find it too much (perhaps not the right word) fanboyism to call it GNU / Linux and not just Linux, for example, I understand when I hear Linux that it is an OS made up of these two parts Regardless of the percentage of each one, both were essential in the beginning to get to what is now. Of course, at least you have to clarify in some way (mostly to avoid bonfires) that they tell you how they say it will always be GNU / Linux (technically speaking). And although this is a serious blog, there is still freedom for him to tell you however you want, you know what it is and that is enough, in the same way, GNU does not disappear because of a simple mistake (which it is not) like that. Although pandev92, be free to avoid this and say that it is GNU / Linux but you say Linux because the truth, even me, I get tired of pressing shif + GNU + shif + / + L + inux every time I want to mention it XD ...
What I am clear about is that I don't like and feel uncomfortable with that attitude taken by many people who follow "x" or "y" philosophy. And it is not bad that they defend it, but one thing is to defend and another to attack, right?
As an example, a friend of mine (free software extremist in my opinion) uses Linux (sorry, but I like to say that) and I was using Windows at that time, he looked at me with the eyes of a stoned goat and told me that I was an idiot for stop being free and enslave me in Windows. Anyway, "what the hell? Free? I'm free, less of my own judgment" I said. And what do I mean by this? I'm not good at exposing arguments or ideas, but I wanted to explain more or less this:
"Whatever system you use, whatever you think, believe what you believe or like what I like, I was always free according to my own philosophy, which is what really dictates who I am. In this case, my philosophy (or at least my way of seeing life, I know the concept differs but not the idea itself, I think) is not to enslave myself in any other way unless it is necessary and does not necessarily have to be forced . » (I know it is too superfluous and stuff, but philosophical is not my strong suit, for that very reason, I avoid falling into complications and trying to be a slave as free as possible).
And of course, I am semi-aware of the monopolies of some companies, the difficulties and limitations of some others, and of certain things that, although they do not affect me so much, I know that many more do and in a very deep way (as much as to even condition your comfort at work and even deprive yourself of that comfort.
I don't know if Photoshop is a good example, for graphic designers using Linux, anyone says “ahh, but there is GIMP, Krita, Inkscape, etc. he deprives himself ", but what if he or she is comfortable in his beloved Linux? What can he or she do ?, switch to Windows if he wants (by the way, I think in words it would be something like "force himself to resign voluntarily"), so who the hell are we to block his freedom to be enslaved and use Windows alone by Photoshop for your convenience? Absolute freedom does not exist for me, it is like becoming a vegetarian so as not to kill animals and thus respect life, killing plants.
These issues of freedom are too complex for me and I deprive myself of learning more, well, I am satisfied with what I think since in the same way I think that my life would be more messy looking for freedom than avoiding slavery.
Returning to the point, I agree with most of the post, with several points and especially that leaving aside all those useless intellectual addons (I mean the bad guys, extremisms) of free or open source software, Linux is not the soul of the world and a user who uses Office for example should not be hanged and then comes home to use LibreOffice ... After all, nothing is done with discussing 10 hours when in 30 minutes Debian is installed and in an instant you realize that you have not died for it.
At the end of the day, too, I know he is free to even disrespect, but that would be to be a slave to a bad philosophy. In my opinion clear.
Sorry for such a long comment, maybe it's empty, maybe not, but it's my first big comment on desdelinux and I got excited.
Greetings all.
The truth is that I do not agree with most of the things you say. Your analysis lacks rigor in many ways.
I just want to express something: Linux users should all be against injustice and, therefore, against the global economic model.
Luck.
And someone who uses ubuntu says it, the distro that powers the Canonical company. By the way, that linuxers use gnu / linux does not mean that they share the gnu philosophy (you just have to see the Pandev article). And from there to sharing the political-economic ideology there is a HUGE stretch.
Kubuntu to be precious, which is the same but not the same. I also use proprietary soft if it is useful to me. But that's not why I end up saying that things are like that and cannot be changed. On the contrary, I came to free software precisely because I am fighting for a change and it seems to me a good tool, apart from feeling part of a world community that, contrary to what Linus says, throws away all the selfishness and individualism to which the system has us used to it.
Lately there have been other posts with similar thoughts. I believe that Linux itself is a tool. What has a philosophy in itself is not linux, but free software. I agree with some of the things you have said. It is true that creating free software in the current economic model is complicated for the small developer. But it is necessary to change the economic model for many other reasons, free software is one more! I don't agree with saying "That's the way it is, period, if you don't like it, you screw yourself." Well, if I don't like it at least I can say that I don't like it.
I respect your opinion, but I see it the other way around. After 6 years of using Linux, I use it for philosophical reasons (or whatever you want to call it). Of course many things would be easier for me if I continued to use windows, but for THOSE REASONS (put whatever name you want), I have decided to use Linux and free software for everything. That supposes me to have to learn continuously and some other problem; in return, I consider the results to be optimal and I am happy with myself. That is, if I have to use MSOffice, I WILL NOT USE IT, and I will figure out how to replace it. Of course, it is only an opinion.
Point 1: OLE
Point 2: what do you use instead of flash? I can't get rid of it: \
Sorry, Adobe flash *
Yes: GNU Gnash. The only bad thing is that it does not open all the advertising banners that come out, in addition to that many web pages made at the tip of flash do not open correctly, also that it consumes more resources than Adobe Flash Player itself.
I believe that our problems -many- with flash have their days numbered. While we have some suffering left.
It is not a religion, but behind it it has a philosophy.
Behind it it has thousands of different philosophies, so you cannot say "this is so, and those who think differently from me, go to the stake", it is an operating system, where each one benefits in their own way.
I started Linux out of curiosity almost 7 and a half years ago and what you say is true as a temple.
I remember when Stallman was asked about the launch of Steam for Linux, and although he did not like the idea (mainly because of the DRM issue, which I share in this case) although he later said "at least you will not use Windows"
Although I share the 4 freedoms of Free Software and I defend it, if I have to use proprietary software, either out of necessity or because I want to, like the NVIDIA or Steam drivers respectively, I do.
Of course, there is a third group in Linux, and they are the ones who say that Linux should only be used by professionals in the sector, universities, etc., not by desktop users (as we are usually called)
"Unfortunately in the real world, the mentality that software is a product still prevails, and there is a charge for using this software, whether we like it or not, but this is the model we live in"
In that sentence you have made the mistake that many make, comparing free software with free software. Not all free software is free, although most are, and not all free software is free.
Regarding the post in general, I have to say that I agree that everyone uses what they want at all times (I, for example, use Windows and GNU / Linux).
I also think the issue of freedom is confused. It is true that if you are a fan of something and try to convince someone about what they MUST use, we are also coercing them, but proprietary software also limits the use that you can give it, preventing you, for example, from recommending it to someone and being you can "pass" it.
"Probably someone would come and take the code, improve it, and your application would outperform the original, with minimal effort"
Here you leave out all those people who could help improve bugs or the operation in general thanks to being able to access the source code.
In short, and always in my opinion, that each one uses what they like the most and what they need at all times, but also that proprietary software limits us when it comes to doing what we want.
A greeting.
Hi, with great respect, I tell the friend who posted this, READ MORE ABOUT FREE SOFTWARE, don't write with your liver, you are free to choose what you want.
Linux is the kernel GNU / Linux is the right thing to do (packages plus the kernel)
Radicals on the other hand, I remind you that free software is built, they license it and they make other people use it AND IF THEY FIND UTILITY (it works for them), a donation is made, this is how free projects live, developers use what they build and give support technical to companies and THAT IS WHAT THEY LIVE ON, no one dies of hunger unless, like lazy, they wait for them to knock on their doors without showing anything of what they are capable of doing. We all use microsoft software and free sw in some way, because we work in different places and not everyone thinks like us, for example I have a preference for free sw, I adapt to what there is and if something does not work for me I try to solve it with what There is documentation on the main project sites and community help, I learn and use GNU / Linux and BSD operating systems, I have also learned to program web applications and from that I live mostly using free software and I don't boast that I use this that, I do not speak too much like a fanatic, but if someone is interested I will talk to them what is necessary, I try to give solutions using free technology, manage servers with GNU / Linux and BSD (FreeBSD, OpenBSD and NetBSD) I find it useful and I do not GIVE UP and I DO NOT COMPLAIN , I have a preference and affection for free sw, I like some ways of thinking where they say that technology related to sw should not be closed, we should read more about the GPL and BSD licenses before writinganything, in part you are right but you are very radical.
I think that if we must make an apology for free software and veto proprietary software to the extent of our possibilities. But without self-flagellating. I do not think it is barbarous to have and install Steam to throw a few vices, unfortunately the pros gamers do not have a free offer that makes the slightest shadow to the greats of recreational entertainment.
In this case, it is the economic system that is imposed when selling the closed-source game. It is capitalism and generates millions of profits. There are insufficient resources in any Linux project capable of competing with Blizzard, for example.
Very good article and will generate controversies, with your permission I copy it and publish it on my page (with your credits of course). The idea is that everyone contributes according to their experiences and not their fanaticism.
I mostly identify with the writing, unfortunately I still have programs from my medical profession that only work on Windows and the companies that made them have not wanted me to make one for Linux, so I have to use them in that OS, yes or yes .
Otherwise, I like GNU / Linux.
There are many ways to get money, one way to make your software open and sell it is to upload the source code and sell the compiled program: if you know how to compile it is free and if not, no. What I am not going to do is enter a war of "who leaves the cheapest software".
But if there is free software, take advantage of it whenever you can. I agree with the fact that everyone is free to do whatever comes out of their balls with their computer, I myself have not been able to get rid of flash (with gnash and lightspark it has not gone well for me), and I consume Facebook and google + (that's another, you can also make money with advertising). However, if you have free and free software with the same features or better than those provided by proprietary software (and beware that I am not saying anything about "I can do this with it" that to do the basics you can live with the software free, despite the flash).
Gnu is your friend and as a friend he is there to support you and help you in whatever way he can. And hey, if we can help the community with more programs and improvements, why not do it?
Clearly in my selfish world, I will contribute to the project that benefits me personally.
It's that that's his thing xD I don't expect you to start making code for an application that is only in Russian XD
comments pandev92 "If I have learned anything in recent years, it is that the truth depends on which side you look at, and that none of us have it in its entirety" and then continues with His truth, full of confusion, relativism and sentences.
The truth has surprised me with the arrogance and the arrogance with which you were sentencing your truth.
It is not surprising at the moment, the arrogant right now talks about freedom and democracy, but only its own.
Pandev92 will remind you that gnu / linux is SHARE and not COMPETITION. It would be good to clarify your concepts. If you still think that selfishness is the engine that makes humanity advance, it will be your truth, and a lower state of consciousness, where the arrogance of the right.
If you have said it, that is the mentality of gnu, the opensource is more practical, than just a mentality.
On the arrogant right, better grow up and stop mixing churra sheep with merino sheep.
If you don't know where you have the right or where you have the left, it is your problem pandev92. With so much relativism you only manipulate
And then the worst part is that you use ubuntu and you talk about the desire to share and community, as if that was something that canonical cares about. If you used trisquel or Gnusense, I would accept what you say, but this way, you just seem like one more hypocrite, hiding under a keyboard.
And what has to do with using Ubuntu to talk about Sharing? I think you are wrong there friend, because as you say that you use Linux, Windows or OS X for various reasons, Vivaldis may have the same reasons, or different reasons for using Ubuntu, and not for that reason follow the ideology, philosophy or actions of Canonical.
I'm not mistaken, in order to be a defender of the gnu philosophy, you cannot then use something that does not comply with that philosophy, it is very hypocritical. I'm not a defender of it and you don't see me using gnu sense or trisquel.
Sometimes it is impossible to be 100% GNU that does not mean that you are against the monopoly, I am a Debian user, but for a long time I found myself in the need to use a distro that took me less time to install (I use an iso net install, not I will go into details or discussions about this or why I did not download another iso ... blah blah) the point is that I use Trisquel, but my wireless network card does not work, so I had to download the driver, compile it and load it with a startup script . However, my Lap is not 100% Free yet because my HD is not Free, it is like that of many Private, therefore at least in Mexico we do not have the culture of Free HD, we are still outside of being 100% Free, that is not It means that Trisquel users who have drivers working like I do, let's be hypocrites.
Finger error: "THAT DOES NOT MEAN YOU ARE NOT AGAINST THE MONOPOLY"
And of course, much less, go with an air of superiority, when not even the person who is judging, believing himself a defender of gnu, then it turns out that not even that person does what he says.
In order to judge others, at least you have to do what you say, otherwise, you are suffering from something called double mindedness and:
The double minded man is fickle in all his ways
Well, I would change the text of your tux your comments, because they all say GNU / Linux
@Morpheus:
And do you think that most of those who use GNU / Linux are going to use the GNU / Linux-Libre kernel? Well, I think not because they surely have AMD / ATI and / or NVIDIA hardware with Broadcom.
@ eliotime3000
Here it is not a matter of majorities or uses. I use a "non-free" kernel and right now I am using windows (required).
Simply put, the system is called GNU / Linux, not because I say so, but because IT IS SO (it clearly says it in the Tux icon) and there is a group that insists on despising the GNU philosophy, not only for the fact of removing it from the name, but for all kinds of offensive comments ("fundamentalist", "religious") against, without even finding out about things as basic as the difference between free and free.
I do not judge those who use proprietary software (I am in a certain way one of them) but rather the contempt for "free philosophy", but I also know that those ideas of confusing it with "communism" or "terrorism" or things for the style are IMPOSED by the powerful of proprietary software through the media.
It's a shame that a blog dedicated to issues related to the Linux kernel (with or without gnu) like this one misinforms so much with these types of articles.
We do not "impose" anything, we try to inform.
A pity that the message is not understood
@Morpheus:
And those who have created the distros Ubuntu, Red Hat and others that don't put GNU / Linux on it, didn't they put it like that because they wanted to? No, because in many cases they do not sympathize with the philosophy of the FSF, and therefore they do not put it.
I am not referring precisely to the philosophy, but many times, the current form of those who defend the GNU / Linux kernel do it without taking into account the philosophy of the FSF, so the FSF has certified the distros that use the Linux-libre kernel and not the Trovals kernel due to the blob issue.
I am willing to install Parabola GNU / Linux-Libre because my hardware is capable of running that kernel without problems.
@ eliotime3000
It is that free software allows that. If I want, I can take the linux kernel, modify it and redistribute it as morpheoOS.
Ubuntu, Red Hat and others can do whatever they want: "Open office" was used to make "Libre Office", MySQL was used to make MariaDB, the Linux kernel is used, to make Android, I use MariaDB and JQuery to do my programs, etc. That is not why I am going to call them Myprogram / JQuery. It is Myprogram, why validate only one part?
And we do not know to what extent these companies sympathize or not with the FSF, that does not matter.
The problem is the willful disregard for the creators of this movement from which we are all benefiting, which is called GNU. Linux is just a kernel, which was finished before HURD (but 10 years after the birth of GNU) and has a more "catchy" name, nothing more.
I have virtualized trisquel, that is, whoever has a mouth is called loudmouth. You think you can manipulate reality and reconvert it to the taste of degenerate whims.
Well, I'm not wrong, I see that you define yourself as a liberal, and it shows, your philosophical opinions stink of a degenerate liberal, and the text you've written sounds like PRIVATIZING the code.
I am an end user of gnu / linux, and I recognize good from evil, something that you, with your mental relativisms, do not know.
I do not understand what is constructive about this article ... Nor how it is allowed to publish articles with such low quality ... Of course one thing has been achieved: in less than 10 hours it has a lot of comments and views ...
For my part you have lost a reader. Deleting RSS ...
You are free to do whatever you want xphnx. We have said it a thousand times and it is already tiring: DesdeLinux It is not pandev, it is not nano, it is not elav, it is not KZKG^Gaara, nor is it the rest of those who collaborate here. If you see yourself: Bye! You can come back whenever you want.
It seems to me that it is the same troll that I had commented in another post, but with another alias. If I find him in Taringa, Fayerwayer and / or in plp.cl, I greet him and the matter is fixed.
@elav It is true, but these types of articles greatly lower the quality of the blog. A shame
@Morpheus:
Take a look at linuxquestions.org, as we are at least trying our best to improve.
What? A single article damages the quality of the entire blog? I mean, this single post makes others stink according to that, or well, I may misunderstand and I'm on the defensive, but in any case, for one or two users who abandon reading the blog, it does not die or disappear.
I don't know why I comment on this if nothing changes, but still, I need to vent so….
Go away, in the end it's one who loses because this blog is excellent, one of the best there is and I congratulate you guys, not everyone does a project like this. Know that at least I am a very satisfied user, my eyes are happily hosted on the blog.desdelinux.net 😉 …
I'm not going to abandon reading the blog, I just think, that's what the comments are for, because I consider that a couple of recent articles:
https://blog.desdelinux.net/el-software-libre-y-la-libertad-de-albedrio/
https://blog.desdelinux.net/linux-no-es-una-religion
Instead of contributing positively, they misinform and confuse very very important topics for the blog (just read the title "Let's use Linux to be FREE") they confuse FREEDOM with gratuitousness, they separate the "freedom to choose" from the freedom to choose knowing what we choose in terms of software and they attack the movement that gave rise to this important revolution that is free software.
It is your form of appreciation, perhaps he is right and his point of view differs completely from yours, in my case I do not see it that way, but, in the face of this problem, what can be done? Silencing Nano and Eliotime would be an attack on their freedom to publish (in this case, the word "right" fits better) his opinion, but still, I have read several articles that I have not found and the best I can do is ignore them (I do not remember which ones, because I ignored them).
Anyway, and cruelly, we leave or we stay and that assuming its good and bad things.
Demanding a certain quality of a community blog is already too much to ask, and still, it does what it can.
That is what pandev92 criticizes on the surface, more than intolerance and arrogance, that attitude of hatred or contempt (and I am not saying that you are like that, because your point of view is understandable from your position). So excuse me if I got defensive or I don't understand as much as everyone else.
You have to take things more calmly.
Well morpheus, you have right on the main page, below the articles, a pager that will take you to readings of greater interest. You can also use Tags and Categories .. 😉
What things. It is an opinion article that does not try to teach anything and it is quite clear, only that some began to distort it with their comments. I say, if they don't like it, and if they are allowed in this blog, why don't the usual "revilers" write a good article, let's see how they do it.
If there is no choice, then there is no freedom.
What many gnu / linuxers propose is that there is no freedom. Give gnu / linuxers a chance and they are able to abolish commercial software, because they have a fixation on it. They are not able to see or perhaps they do not understand the true value of freedom, since we have the option of having a Linux distribution on our computer, from that moment, each one individually, I end up with commercial software.
However, I always want to be able to decide whether to go back to the commercial software world, because I want to be free to do so.
I really don't pay much attention to gnu / linuxers. They say that the software must be free to modify them at will; then they complain because this or that distribution is moving from GNOME to UNITY or to KDE or whatever; So distributions are not free to use whatever software they please ?; Why do they complain, they are not free to use another distribution or, failing that, modify it at will?
Why pay attention to a group of gnu / linuxers, who even complain about the change of the wallpaper in a distribution.
Red Hat is a company that SELLS the Red Hat Enterprise Linux operating system, which is completely "commercial software" and also "FREE". Red Hat is publicly traded.
I am a programmer and I SELL the software that I make but licensed under GPL (it is completely FREE and I also make use of free libraries), delivering the source code together with the binary (in general I work with interpreted languages, so there is no such binary) , for my client to do with him what he wants because it is HIS, IT IS HIS RIGHT. As a programmer, I don't have the right to hide from my users how my programs work.
It has nothing to do with this if the software is commercial or not, but if it is FREE or PRIVATIVE
You are free to do whatever you say you do and your clients are free to choose what you do.
So where did that "many gnu / linuxers propose, is that there is no freedom"?
It is not a religion, but, although I use windows for extremely necessary things, if I use it it is because there are applications that do not exist in linux or are very rare to find, so, as long as the use of windows is still encouraged, there will be those applications for linux.
That is, if you do not defend an operating system, the great powers will continue to be above it, it is as if I now create an operating system and say: But Windows is fine, eh it has things that my operating system does not.
Then no one will use my system, you have to promote linux that it deserves it.
Exact. Very well explained and meticulously.
Only one detail was missing, in my view, very important.
Many people, many, cannot have access to the computer because they cannot pay for a program or a license because they are really expensive. However, GNU / Linux makes things easier for them. Do you know everything that can be done on a computer and that if GNU / Linux were not there, they could not be done because of money? There are people who cannot buy a computer, but nevertheless have a very clear head to make good use of it.
I don't use GNU / Linux precisely because of the money issue. I use it because I like it, because of how its applications work, because of the terminal, because of KDE, and a thousand other things ... but not precisely because it is free, that is, it is not my main reason 😉
M'ijo, the problem is not precisely the money, but in the way in which one is going to use the software. I use GNU / Linux for convenience when working with programming, deleting malware for USB and downloading files from cyberlockers and it works wonders, plus I don't have to pay for an original antivirus because Microsoft's operating system is a plethora of exploits and have me tied to their proprietary applications for editing multimedia content.
Still, I use Windows (believe me, I use Windows Vista SP2 and it works wonders) because I still can't get used to software like GIMP, Inkscape and / or Scribus.
@Chaparral:
I agree with everything you say in this comment, but like you, I also want to clarify another point: @Pandev -and I am wrong that he corrects me- at no time does he claim that the existence of GNU / Linux is bad and when You say that as of today GNU / Linux is not a philosophy, you are right. However, Pandev's words do not deny that within GNU / Linux there is no philosophical current and a political proposal for change.
Nobody doubts that GNU was born as a political / social project -of course supported by a philosophy, otherwise the proposal would be hollow- but to this day, and for practical purposes, that proposal has been exceeded. If we read all the comments, many of us express that we use GNU / Linux for pleasure, nothing more. Even many of us do not even agree - to a greater or lesser extent - with Mr. Stallman.
Does that mean we dislike the very existence of the GNU / Linux movement? NO. Conversely. It's good that there are people who do something for the benefit of society, but what many of us question are the manners. I am certain that, as in any social movement, there are radicals and moderates and precisely Pandev's claim goes to that radical sector, not to the GNU / Linux movement itself.
Honestly, it seems to me an excess to question Pandev a mere formalism, what difference does it make to say -or write, in this case- Linux or GNU / Linux when all of us who are here already know what it is about? Or is it that GNU / Linux cannot be called, in a colloquial way, Linux, and that the concept is understood, since the word "Linux" is not presented alone but within a context of ideas? It seems to me that on an issue that questions radicalism, the attitude that I should least assume to defend an idea is precisely the extremist.
It seems to me that the GNU movement should seriously rethink its position and, probably, even part of its postulates because today, for today, GNU / Linux no longer represents for the vast majority of us, its users, the same as for them. An example of this is the pragmatism of Canonical whose OS is, without a doubt, the most popular and with the largest number of users in the GNU / Linux world. Of course, this is thinking that we are consistent with our ideas and our actions, because I cannot find a phrase further removed from Stallman's proposal than "... this is not a democracy." However, despite the fact that Canonical is not a democracy, it has brought the GNU / Linux proposal much closer to the man and woman in the street.
And, please, the point here is not to open a debate on whether or not Canonical ignores its users or whether or not it has entered into a commercial agreement to include advertising and / or misrepresentation of its users' data. No. The point is that the postulates that were the genesis of GNU no longer apply to all of GNU / Linux. And this is what we must assume.
Tina gives a sensible touch to what I wrote xdd, I wish I was so good at explaining eheheh!
Although I don't know if what I have written about the same subject it is well written or not, but at least I have been cautious with my words.
Without this setting a precedent I agree with Pandev LOL
The goal of GNU was never to be the best OS, nor to be used by everyone, but to promote its philosophy. It is very sad that "the vast majority of its users" do not understand it.
I feel with that that "the postulates that were the genesis of the GNU no longer apply."
Every day things are discovered that show that Stallman was right about "malicious" (I CLARIFY, malicious the SOFTWARE, not those who use it, those are victims). Have you heard about Snowden and the NSA?
More and more the phrase "Stallman was right" is repeated.
Those who must rethink the position are others.
Now more than ever you have to try to be more free than ever.
I've long known that Stallman was right. In fact, if you read the terms and conditions of the proprietary software (including Google Chrome), you will realize that in a way you cannot reverse engineer the Chromium fork or its built-in extensions (including Pepper Flash).
Now, that people do not bother to read that and / or see what privacy options the most popular social networks such as Facebook and / or Twitter have (including the developer section of both social networks), one will be given realize how simple it is to err on the side and register by majority.
Trying to build it is not enough 😀 let's use what we have to build new free technologies little by little, FreeSoft companies that can make money, employ programmers who also need jobs and feed their families.
Morpheus, don't take my sentence out of context, please. I have never affirmed "the postulates that were the genesis of GNU no longer apply", what I'm saying is that "the postulates that were the genesis of GNU no longer apply FOR ALL GNU / Linux."
Now tell me that is not a reality.
Stallman himself exposes the reasons why Android cannot be considered as an OS belonging to GNU / Linux.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/android-and-users-freedom.html
I will not question whether or not you are right to consider that, but if I can ask myself then how many of the OS, which today are considered part of GNU / Linux, are genetically pure to be considered within the GNU / Linux category? Who and under what criteria evaluate the degree of purity of OS to fit it within said classification? Under what criteria is the relevance of this "little" or "much" of the GNU genetic code determined?
What I think is that finally the GNU / Linux world will end in a schism and a Linux Mint user, for example, will end up using a Linux OS, without GNU, as Android is now classified.
It seems to me a total sample of Manichaeism to say that everything is rotten in Denmark, I do not agree with what Mirlo, for example, affirms: things are not just black and white. It is not a battle of angels against demons.
Thinking like this is like wanting to end poverty by killing the rich for the simple fact of "thinking" that wealth is synonymous with evil and greed and that therefore all the rich are bad. Is all proprietary software really that bad? Is all proprietary software really useful for spying? And how do we know that the agency Snowden worked for did not use GNU / Linux software as a tool to spy on others?
Morpheus, if the ultimate goal of GNU is to promote a philosophy and not to intend to be the best software or the most used, what then is its praxis? How do the abstract concepts of this philosophy connect with lived reality?
It seems to me that the GNU promotes a revolution of consciences and that seems perfect to me, but such a revolution the least it can do is incorporate radical positions such as outside of us everything is bad and everything we say is good. I do not doubt the good intentions of Stallman, nor do I doubt the good intentions of Snowden ... but I do distrust and dislike the speeches and positions that only speak of their advantages without considering the negative costs. That is demagoguery.
And what changes the "FOR ALL GNU / Linux"?
I don't think there are two worlds of GNU / Linux. On the one hand the GNU and on the other the Linux? That division is posed by you.
Android does not use GNU software. The creators of GNU know what programs they made, and they know whether or not they are on a system.
And how do we know that the agency Snowden worked for did not use GNU / Linux software as a tool to spy on others?
BECAUSE WE CAN READ THE CODE !!!
The fact that most users do not know how to program does not mean that those of us who do know can review it and see what it does or contribute.
If it is even in doubt if in a simple instruction of the intel processors (RdRAnd) it was used as a backdoor by the NSA in linux, because you cannot know internally what it is doing.
I do not mean that "all proprietary software is malicious", I mean that we should have the right to know what all software we use does to be sure that it is not (among other rights that I consider basic as a user).
"Is all proprietary software really good for spying?"
The problem is that we CANNOT KNOW IT, that is what I do not consider ethical, prohibiting the user from knowing what the program that is executing does.
»What then is your praxis? How are the abstract concepts of this philosophy connected to lived reality? "
Well, promoting and spreading this philosophy. Informing, not lying saying that "we are the best." Letting the world know that there are free alternatives, that they are there to be used, improved or taken as a basis to do something better.
If we keep sticking with proprietary software because "whoever said it's bad" they will never improve free alternatives.
Luckily in the world the SL is advancing by leaps and bounds.
Pity for a group that continues to be dazzled by the advantages of Photoshop, and on top of that they write in «desde linux» strangely trying to stop this revolution.
morpheus dixit:
«I don't think there are two worlds of GNU / Linux. On the one hand the GNU and on the other the Linux? That division is posed by you. "
No. That's what Stallman says:
«Android is very different from the GNU / Linux operating system because it contains very little of GNU…… the situation is simple: Android contains Linux, but not GNU; thus, Android and GNU / Linux are mostly different. »
"Android is very different from the GNU / Linux operating system, as it contains very little GNU ... ... the situation is simple: Android contains Linux, but not GNU, so Android and GNU / Linux are very different."
Stallman claims that Android contains GNU, but it is too little to be considered GNU. How little is that little to leave an OS out of GNU and how much is enough to consider it within that category?
morpheus dixit:
«“ And how do we know that the agency Snowden worked for did not use GNU / Linux software as a tool to spy on others?
BECAUSE WE CAN READ THE CODE !!! »
Did you read the code used by the agency where Snowden worked? Morpheus, I am not trying to say that free software is bad, but I am questioning that the mere fact of being free software exempts it from being used for evil.
morpheus dixit:
«Pity for a group that continues to be dazzled by the advantages of Photoshop, and on top of that they write in “desde linux"strangely trying to stop this revolution."
Nobody tries to stop that revolution, what is questioned is not the ideas but the ways.
@Tina
Stallman does not make an ideological division by thought:
Stallman is a programmer, he made a set of programs that working together make up a complete operating system that he called GNU. They had to finish the kernel (HURD) while Torvalds created Linux and, taking advantage of the free work of GNU, the operating system was functional.
Stallman knows if Android has some of these programs inside it, and he will surely use some, but not enough to attribute the operation of android to the GNU operating system.
Stallman is not judging Andtroid or anyone else, GNU is a set of programs, not a level of "quality" or "goodness."
"Did you read the code used by the agency where Snowden worked?"
Obviously not, I was talking about the GNU / Linux code. I have read it (not in its entirety) and the millions of people who collaborate in it also. You can do it and try to see if you find something malicious. If there was, it would have already been reported to everyone, as I tell you what happened with the intel.
What are these "ways"? Do you think I have "those ways" in my comments? Our sole intention is to inform
Sorry to differ on this point. Stallman is judgmental and pretty. In fact, his radical thinking is well known. 😉
And in a way, Apple did it with its OSX with respect to BSD, although from BSD it barely has the old DrawinBSD kernel.
I think that the concepts of useful, comfortable etc etc. They must be taken into account thinking about the price you pay, and I am not referring only to money, but to the fact that they take over your computer. Because they limit what you can do with it from the outside, and you give them the key to enter your machine when they please. You have to be aware of that and then choose
The free-software movement implies that you have an alternative where there was none before, you can choose that your computer is yours, that the software is yours to share and adapt it as and when you want.
On Canonical, let's not confuse. It is still free-software, we can still adapt it, change it, and redistribute it to others, as we can do with Debian, Arch or whatever distro you can think of.
Although, due to the hardware issue, we are still forced to include proprietary software, it is not the same to use a closed driver, so that your network card works, than the entire operating system, it simply has no comparison.
And Canonical or whatever, also has the right to make free software more comfortable, more user-friendly or whatever ... as long as its code is open and anyone has the freedom to modify and share it as they please, and even now still the case.
Canonical's movements have more to do with its arrival on tablets and smartphones, which is going to be the way to use computing in the future. And I don't know if many still realize what this means.
We had no alternative, we all had to learn using güindous, but within 10 years, it may be the case of children who do not use güindous in their lives, neither to play, nor to work nor to learn.
Because the first contact they had with computing was a tablet or a smartphone with Unity pre-installed. And they will be much more used to using the terminal, than to blue screens, viruses, and the next> next> next.
As for the name, it is Gnu-Linux and not Linux, what can we do! It is convenient to get used to naming things as they are called, and not as is more comfortable or practical.
I like you. It shows that if you have left your house in the last 10 years xD
That's the nice thing about putting Arch Linux aside for a goodeeeeeeeen time.
I think that here there are a lot of mixed concepts and that it is convenient to separate. To choose in freedom, one must have information from freedom. Let's put the philosophical aspects aside and get down to the practical.
The question I think needs to be asked is ... what is free software for? .
It serves so that every person or group has access to the software, regardless of their economic or social condition. It is used to share, redistribute, learn and improve, with complete freedom, programs and operating systems and adapt them to the needs of each one.
It is used to know what it does and does not do what you install on your computer. It also serves for companies to earn money, since they are also free to use it, and therefore it also produces economic and work benefits, (and savings from our taxes, which is also money, when used by public administrations) .
And of course the other side of the coin, what is proprietary software for? . It is used for the companies that develop it to put a back door on your computer (yes, the one you own), and have access to your information.
It is used to use your computer, not as you want to do it, but as the developer who designed the system or application has thought you should use it.
And it serves to give work to a handful of gigantic companies that live like a king, so that you only use the software, because the software is not yours nor can you buy it, you only have the right to use it with a license that can change at any time without your consent.
Knowing what each thing can be used for, it is up to each one to use whatever they want.
"It serves so that every person or group has access to the software, regardless of their economic or social condition." This part is ideal, but in practice it is not entirely true, it can guarantee that the code is available, but not that the economic condition is not a limitation (that you do not have to pay to have the code, or have to have the binary to use it). The problem is that there are many licenses that integrate what we know as free licenses http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Compatibilidad_y_licencias_m.C3.BAltiples
Man ... obviously if you don't have to buy a computer, you won't have access to any software, neither free nor non-free. Before it will be to eat and have medical attention every day, than to have a pc. What I don't see is Microsoft and Mac giving away their operating system licenses to people without resources, right?
I thought this blog was of quality, they gave good tips but they already fell into the MuyLinux yellowish style, another one that deletes them from the RSS
luck.
What a troll ...
Contact @ pandev92 to teach them writing classes (as in many cases, creating flamewars is natural for some people).
Do not worry. We will never be as yellowish as TechRights. Do not doubt that.
Well, although the most tabloid in Hispanic cyberspace are FayerWayer. Of that I have no doubt.
In FayerWayer there are no religious of free software but of Apple (like Alt1040). at TechRights yes.
GNU witnesses, GNU witnesses everywhere.
It is true that there are many blind fanatics, as everywhere. Usually I stay away from the fanatics, they do not think clearly, they are just sheep that repeat what others say. I'm talking about fans in general.
In my case now I use windows 8, although I have not turned on my machine for a month because I have nothing important to do and it is late in college. I usually virtualize an archlinux server without a graphical environment, only for ftp and http servers. Not to use the wammp shit. But I feel better this way, my machine works better and I have all the quality programs I need. I don't need to restart to play, nor do I have to deny the libreoffice.
I go to shoutcast.com, download the .pls file and open it in VLC. It's that simple to listen to a Shoutcast station.
Hahahaha I think the same and I also do the same, I prefer to virtualize Linux for the things I need since Windows works great for me on all my machines and I use the software I need, before they were partitioned for Linux and Windows (and another with OS X ) and that is a mess, so I decided to leave Windows in all and virtualize, as Linux does not need many resources because I do not have a problem and many free software programs work in Windows without problems ...
As is, my archlinux machine uses 20mb of ram, a pittance. Using linux as the main system is not very practical, but you have to resign and bow your head with all the limitations that linux brings, which are solved with the dual boot, but it is not worth it. It is much more comfortable to virtualize.
comments pendev92 «" Linux is a philosophy "
Serious, serious mistakes. Linux is not a philosophy, at least not anymore, the clear example is the number of companies that also have proprietary developments and use Linux for their needs, such as Oracle, AMD, Nvidia, Steam, Intel, IBM….
Even the popular party in my area uses Linux out of necessity, because it doesn't have to renew lots of computers and simply because it covers everything that is done, so we cannot judge who does that »
huh that scares me. Even the PP uses gnu / linux and since we go through here and this is nobody's why we don't privatize the system? They fear me, the neoliberals, looters of the public, without ethics or morals, they only obey Machiavelli "the end justifies the means", the end is to earn money, the means general looting of the public.
Pendev92 not even you realize the atrocities you write.
Pendev92? "" Linux is a philosophy "? WTF ?!
What @ pandev92 put before putting that phrase is this:
Serious, serious mistake not knowing how to read such a text carefully.
pandev92 wrote before
"If I've learned anything in recent years, it's that the truth depends on which side you look at, and that neither of us have it in its entirety."
Well, first discover moral relativism, and then drop their sentences.
Serious, serious mistake not knowing how to UNDERSTAND a text like this carefully.
For you
http://www.actigreen.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/600x/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/m/a/manzanilla_ecol_gica.jpg
it will be necessary in the face of so much neoliberal outrage
Enough !, We are those who use Linux for mere convenience / necessity and those who use it to follow a philosophy ... Why so much discord ?. I don't know what to call it, but it seems absurd to me that each user wants to be free by imposing their opinion on others. (I can backfire)
But after all, Linux is used. If even the slogan of the blog says: "Let's use Linux to be free", but why? Does Linux make us free or the decision to use it itself? ...
Don't worry, fans and fanboys backfired by failing to maintain a neutral stance.
PS: Can anyone close the comments? They are already reaching 200.
Yes, I just get the spark when I see so much disrespect and they have their right, but the right to be respected outweighs me.
His breakdown made me lose my posture XD (bad joke) ...
PS: And this is not over yet, I am surprised not to see Nano, KZKG and their gang ...
At the end of the day, it is an operating system, a work tool, or a means to navigate, or to play games, or whatever we want to entertain with it; it is merely an operating system, not anyone's blood.
Exactly, it seems more than to support the existence of that great operating system (or kernel, as you like) defend opinions that are sometimes wrong or right.
Nobody dies because I say this "I use Windows hahahaha", right?
If I were in front of a certain person, he would rip my tongue out and shove an Arch Linux CD into my ……… .. mouth.
One can only talk about options when the products we can choose from receive the same support. As there is no such thing in most products, one cannot speak of freedom of choice: you stay in Windows so that your products perform at 100% or you use Linux, taking advantage of, for example, an 80% video card even though the system be more stable. Of this there are many, many examples.
The interesting thing about free software is the paradigm shift that it proposes in terms of the producer / consumer relationship, it is a change in the business model according to the abolition of patents, copyrights and other intermediaries that unnecessarily make a product more expensive, and that do not allow to evolve. Free software is a philosophy of life, without going into fundamentalisms, because its production model can be applied to any project and its results are always positive for everyone, perhaps not for the business model that tries to perpetuate itself.
It seems to me that to speak of "there are families to support" is to have stagnant and non-evolutionary thinking; Throughout history there were trades that were no longer dispensable (the elevator operator, for example). I read a very interesting point that helped me clear up all doubts: if there were a machine that infinitely copied bread and allowed everyone to have their bread and at the same time that machine could be freely adapted to render different flavors without having to depend on no baker, what would you choose? Defend the job of the baker or the benefits of a machine that multiplies loaves?
I agree with the intention, although there are some things that seem a bit muddled.
pandev92: »» And if that person wants to earn some money, even a pittance, how is he going to release the code? »
That it is free does not mean that it is free. Paying for a free program does not mean that it is no longer free. I am willing to pay to use my preferred distribution. I chose this distribution with this operating system not because it was free but because I found that it was the best for me. Are any of us unwilling to pay to use GNU / Linux?
And before they throw me in the jugular, I'll tell you that I'm not talking about money alone. That is the easy way. I mean to participate (not just complain) in making your distro, the kernel, the best: from becoming a beta-tester, through translating manuals, to joining a school and helping some restless student to try GNU or open- source.
My selfishness forces me to protect what I value most. And I also want it to be competitive. Linux is competitive: it was born competing, it lives competing and there is no other way to do things. Making it available to anyone is another matter, but all I know in this world is competition. I can also close my eyes and live in lollipop villa for a while.
pandev92: »» Probably, someone would come, take the code, improve it, and its application would surpass the original, with minimal effort, thus leaving the original creator at a competitive disadvantage, causing in the end to decide not to continue with the development, which has happened many times, given the difficulty of monetizing small projects.
This does not prevent the original creator from taking his "improved" product, improving it again, and trying to exchange it for money. It is still a licensing problem. That is why I consider it essential that we all collaborate by providing resources to the creators that we consider relevant, and not only with money.
We must separate the term free from free. Actually, I don't know of anything that is free in this world. Anything has a cost. It has taken me a lot of time to solve the little problems that I have run into. I have been charged because I have obtained in exchange a product difficult to improve, even paying.
So free, yes; Free no.
And we are in the same! If you sell something with a free license, I can take your code and redistribute it for free without any notable modification, in the end, I little skinner, I will lose. Don't you understand what I mean?
Companies like Red Hat can afford it, because they are a brand, a label, a kind of Linux nike. They will always sell, no matter how many linux cent os and scientists come out.
I understand you perfectly. But nothing prevents the small developer from offering the product in exchange for money. If RedHat shows up and wants to keep the small developer's product, let him pay him. This does not mean that the program ceases to be free, nor does the small developer lose their right to improve their product, or to rebuild the one improved by RedHat. As long as RedHat is honest and upholds the terms of the contract.
The problem is still that we think in terms of "I snatch it," with the chip of "mellow-locrackeo-ya-run." And, if you hurry me, because of the proprietary software.
The fact is that I agree with you on almost everything, except for your premise that free software should be free.
Good entry Pandev,
against fundamentalism in any of its forms 😉
pandev92 said
«I started a time when I parroted Stallman's words, being sure that this was the only truth and as almost always, when we believe that we have 100% of the truth, we are wrong, we are not able to see the real world , their needs and we become a kind of religious fanatics who, to a certain extent, are more concerned with software freedoms than human freedoms, which is exhilarating but true.
If I have learned anything in recent years, it is that the truth depends on which side you look at, and that neither of us have it in its entirety. "
nothing richard stallman is a crazy taliban who is maddened. he is a radical. he is a religious fanatic. richard stallman cannot be applied that he has part of the reason.
Pandev92 has said "I have learned that the freedom of the human being, is above the freedom of the software" Oh, there, oh there you begin to see clearly his intentions, to contrast human activities with the human being.
Pandev added "How is a developer who creates a music application going to make money, just by providing technical service, like Red Hat does?" final kick to open source, and that's where he shows his neoliberal smile. How does a developer make a living? perfect alibi to PRIVATIZE the code.
I could elaborate much more, but reading this text scandalizes decent people. Besides, it talks a lot about freedom and the relativism of truth, but it immediately classifies Richard Stallman as RELIGIOUS FANATIC.
Phariseeism or double standards, the one that demands compliance with the law but he skips it, has always caused me an allergy.
Well, I don't understand it that way. When reading pandev92 I understood that it is not enough to be a blind follower but that the message must be assimilated. That does not disqualify either one or the other. It also opens the door for both of you to be wrong when speaking of truth and Truth.
By mentioning that you prefer human freedom to software freedom, I understand that individual freedom is superior to the concept of free software. I don't see any opposition because it is a subjective preference.
Being neoliberal means that you are predetermining the evolution of the economy from the supply side. You can use it as something pejorative, but it is still an economic theory.
I am decent and I am not at all shocked, and I have not been able to find in the article that Richard Stallman is branded as fanatic or religious.
I agree with that allergy you mention; I have a bad time.
In the third paragraph, read carefully Richard Stallman's label as a religious fanatic,
The neoliberals is not only an economic option, it is also the economic impoverishment of the citizens, where an extract of the population, where there are some privileged people who extract all the wealth for their own benefit, chosen by the grace of God, apply economic theories based on in selfishness, the cleverest destroys everything.
I do not need the most intelligent in the government, I want the most decent. See al wert, a very intelligent and worthwhile minister, but he loots the scholarships for the benefit of an extractive class.
The happy COMPETITIVENESS will lead us to war, the production goods will be concentrated in three or four transnationals.
If you want to talk about politics, we can do it offtopic in the forum, it has nothing to do here, besides that you only divert attention, again ...
pandev92 your point of view, which deserves all my respect, is steeped in politics.
all the best
I'm sorry to tell you, my good friend, that even the price of beans is a political decision.
Stallman's decision to create free software was largely a political decision.
It is impossible to separate politics from society, man is a «political animal», and therefore any act of organization that otherwise brings with it a set of norms, protocols and / or rules, finally, whether you like it or not, is a political act.
Software is a tool, it is not an end in itself.
However, the sovereignty and control you have over that tool, which is becoming more and more relevant in our daily lives. This is the importance of Free Software.
If Stallman hadn't started it (and believe me, someone else would hardly have done it under terms like the GPL, because ultimately the personal sacrifices that must be made to work the way he did are many).
At this time we would be completely defenseless on many fronts. As with the NSA (for example).
The truth is that the influence of free software is too great to go into each of the aspects in which it has influenced us all (whether they know it or not).
But whether you like it or not, the reasons for developing software, and especially free software, are not always technical. There are also ideological and political motivations.
The world is not just companies and figures. But ask Stallman, who is the living example that a movement can be started just because of your political and philosophical ideas.
Now that they want to do nothing is another thing, but it is certain that none of you could make the sacrifices that follow your ideals to the point of dedicating your life to it.
For what? It is not more comfortable to look at the navel and think only of one?
Why think of others, if finally, no matter how hard you try to achieve something that is better for everyone, there will always be guys who dedicate themselves to making fun of you and ignoring you just for the fact of not being selfish and working for the good of the world. humanity?
Well, finally those are the people who go down in history, not because they are showbiz, but because they do things that not just anyone is capable of.
That's why there are those who admire them, that's why there are those who follow in their footsteps, that's why there are those who work on those ideas and continue to complement them.
So free software is a philosophy? yes
Is it a political movement? yes
One thing is the software and another is the things behind it.
But it is not necessary to agree with his philosophy to contribute and help him. Because there is a technical aspect closely linked to it.
The technical aspect is the software, and the human aspect is what we do with it. It is precisely the latter that all that I have said above implies. Because software doesn't make itself, and it doesn't use itself. It is SOMEONE who creates it and who uses it.
I'm sorry if I was a bit crude when I wrote, I'm at work at lunchtime and in a hurry I had a hard time sorting out ideas = P.
But as long as the message is understood, fine. =)
Your comment is very lucid Wilson, I take off my hat.
First I have to say that a blog about Linux that presents this type of articles opens a positive and enriching debate of ideas. Bravo for Desde Linux! An online agora where ideas are discussed and concepts are nuanced is always positive.
But of course, the article in question has several arguments of which I want to give my opinion
1. To say that Linux is a philosophy is not a "serious mistake." Linux, like other elements in this postmodern society, has a dual character. Seminally, part of a conception about software framed in a philosophical proposal. This, of course, is not unchangeable. The use and evolution of the kernel has had to make its proposals more flexible in order to reach "a" common user, one who buys hardware without considering many philosophical questions. An approach that has created the uniquely functional character (one more "tool") of GNU-Linux. Linux, of course, is both, but the power of one and the other are, to say the least, unequal, however much one may be "more" practical than the other.
2. Very often, a childish use is made of the meaning of the word freedom. It seems to me that this is the case. Much has been written about this. Authors such as Albert Camus ("The Rebel Man"), Guy Debord (The Society of the Spectacle), Michel Foucault and Slavoj Žižek (to say only a few), have delved into this question. There is no totally free man. In fact "Freedom" can become an entelechy. It is not the same when it is said, to understand each other, by a banker or the president of the United States, as when it is said by a battered housewife, an academic or a human rights activist. Family, illnesses, ties of friendship or need, create chains with which we have to move in our day to day. We may not notice it that way, of course, but its very existence deprives us of "free will." Despite the fact that "free will", in itself, is a debatable concept. Another different issue is whether "someone" forces us to do certain things or chooses for us. The seed of many authoritarianisms, concrete or diffuse, with which we live every day resides, precisely, here. In this, I honestly do not believe that GNU is a totalitarian fundamentalism. Putting it through that is just a "boutade." Another different issue is that their arguments are not insolent because they offend us. But that's a different issue. To overcome it, we must debate. Just what we are doing today.
3. On the friendly side of the world, where we can change our PC every two to three years, we often forget how much money that means and what it costs to earn in various parts of the planet. Other companies don't even consider whether they can buy a Mac or pay for an AutoCad license. It is simply unthinkable. In the West, for a change, we think of ourselves as the navel of the world. GNU-Linux, the largest Non-Commercial computing project on the planet, poses a subversive "but" in the dictatorship of merchandise. Let's not forget it. From my point of view, without wanting to be a fundamentalist, this is fundamental. To be honest, relegating it to a simple tool, domesticated and innocuous, in which the only thing that matters is changing the desktop environment and configuring it to our liking, is to fall short.
Economic categories (competition, value, capital, profits, money, commodity fetishism) have long dominated us. They occur in all areas of life and they subdue us (we are no longer capable of imagining a life without them, no matter how much capitalism only has 500 years of history). With this crisis of civilization that we have been experiencing since 2008, with the decline of a model that concerns all its members, the "philosophical" alternative proposed by GNU-Linux, humanizes the use and creation of software, "decoupling" it from the pure sphere economic, in which profit and its creation is the maximum and only condition.
4. "There is no person signing up to the hundreds for us to use a closed program." True, but you will agree with me on the elementary fact that in the midst of a massive and continuous media bombardment in favor of certain life, the <> is quite conditioned.
Finally, a phrase that has made me think in recent weeks and that I think has a lot to do with what we discussed today:
«… But the system as such does not work because it has the agreement of its subjects, if not because it makes any alternative impossible», (Anselm Jappe, «Credit to Death» Ed. Pepitas de Calabaza, 2011)
Sorry, I correct a mistake
4. "There is no person signing up to the hundreds for us to use a closed program." True, but you will agree with me on the elementary fact that in the midst of a massive and continuous media bombardment in favor of certain lives, "free choice" is quite conditioned.
Xeip ... I may not agree with the entirety of your argument, but I am certain that so far your writing is a good sample of dialectics. Nice to read it.
Thanks a thousand.
+1
Impressive, never someone could have explained it better ... I don't know if you dedicate yourself to writing but what has been said is a pleasure to read. Cheers
Pandev92 wrote
“Unfortunately in the real world, the mentality that software is a product still prevails, and there is a charge for the use of this software, we may like it or not, but this is the model we live in, and go against it, it's like going against the world economic model. "
but you don't realize it, it demands submission, that life is like that, ... if it reminds me of rajoy, austerity and sacrifice, garlic and water, stick it out and hold on, things are like this ... let's see pandev92 GNU / LINUX is to stand up to it to what is established, whether you like it or not, is a revolution against oppression, imposition ... how sad, let's see if we wake up
I can't stop laughing at your comparison of @ pandev92 and the current president of Spain.
The software itself is the logical component of a computer equipment, so it can be offered as a service.
Now, of it becoming a product, that is what Bill Gates envisioned when he began to charge for the source code of his compiler in Basic (anyway, that is the only thing that I highlight from Microsoft besides the Windows interface View).
The problem is that there is always a horde of fascists willing to humiliate you in the most disgusting way possible, imposing their point of view with the threat of death included.
I have the same time as you and I have tried distro after another and I have had to use Windows or OS X to do particular things -Less and less-.
It amazes me every day that there are people who have taken this as a religion and end up in the same eternal discussion: "My God is better than yours" and troy against each other.
Ever since I got a taste for linux, I have realized that my duty as a linuxer is to bring linux to Windows and Mac users in need of power.
I install Ubuntu and explain how to do it, I explain the console and the basic tools and I feel very good when they stay on the side of the penguin.
What we need is people who do things and don't say things.
People who make great quality products: Red Hat
People who make products intuitive and easy to use for new users: Canonical / Ubuntu, Linux Mint.
Ministries of education where a complete computer education is promoted and not limited to learning Microsoft products: Venezuela
As the first page of discussion is the technicality gnu / linux or linux. According to Wikipedia, the programs developed by GNU that we will find in the common distros are the gimp, gnome, bash and gcc / glibc. In my case in arch linux I had neither gnome nor gimp, also I used csh instead of bash, if they use chakra or opensuse it is the same case. Gnome creator miguel de icaza himself said in muylinux in an answer via git that only idiots call it gnu / linux. And the truth I agree is a really idiotic technicality and that does not apply besides that it takes a long time to say I use gnu / linux instead of I use linux. And nobody cares. But I am grateful for the glibc, gcc and gdb that helped me to approve programming 1 in C.
Too much shit poured into the comments, I can't believe it's necessary for people to have to ink everything with ideological nuances, damn, nothing touches my balls more than that, that they want to politicize something, or give it a meaning beyond what is.
Anyway, it was saying that, if I start answering each mischief of each moron that I have seen, I never finish, and it is a subject that has been played a thousand and one times, it never comes to anything.
normally if you itch, you scratch
Normally if you repeat a comment like this, nonsense, I delete it. And I tell you in good vibes.
Too much shit from your point of view .. does not mean it is shit for others .. 😉
elav this comment is out of tune !!! .. anyway, a greeting, and value
I don't know where I got off my tone, I just replied to Nano using her words.
But I make it more beautiful: The fact that someone thinks in a way about what is right or wrong, does not give them the right to say that the person who does not think the same is wrong or is talking trash.
That is what I meant.
You know well what I mean bald, you know very well what I mean, and you are clear that within all the uproar, more than one has shitted and left the milestone lying in the form of a comment.
I don't want to get too long, anyway, regarding Vivaldi's firecracker. Is it necessary to warn you what or what? Please, we just do it and now male.
elav I think there have been misunderstandings.
Nano with so much shit you just suck, see if you wash.
This is the nano, where have you learned to moderate?… What's up, are you a close friend of pandev92? Can't you answer your thesis? quickly do you feel offended? ... who is the firecracker? I hope you rectify, ask for forgiveness and behave with RESPECT.
Hmm in years moderating this site, I think ... although in summary and not to get too long ...
"Normally if you itch, you scratch yourself"
Asking for respect, but calling me an idiot 😉 come on, then I'm the thin-skinned kid.
Look, I told you that I was not going to lengthen and I did not, according to you, the one who itches scratches, right? I applied the same to you and apparently you did not like it, and perhaps you also do not like that I have deleted the previous comments, I would not have done it if they had not been loaded with personal insults.
Anyway, you can continue to think what you want about me and my way of moderating, after all, it doesn't matter 😉
I think that everyone should draw up their own conclusions about the free software movement and the open source movement, this type of article only generates more division in terms of "ideologies", preconceptions and many other thoughts, each head is a world.
No. I think that this type of article really brings out people's thinking about the topic.
Well this is like reading newspapers that misinform me or give me half the truth, I for one am sorry but I'm leaving too. I am clear that pandev92 is not DesdeLinux but I'm sorry, I can't handle so much "bad behavior", because in the end that's what I see, bad behavior. A hug to everyone and I said "everyone." Thanks for all the posts, well for almost all of them. Call me what you want, I will be that and much more.
karlinux
Well karlinux: Bye! May it be beautiful. You will be welcome to come back whenever you want .. 😉
See you in Taringa and Fayerwayer, bro.
It is good to say that proprietary software is an option, but we should add that it often turns against the user, becoming a threat.
On the other hand, GNU is much more than a philosophy, without GNU, possibly Linux would not exist. We must not emphasize only the "negative", we must be fair.
For the rest, I liked reading it.
Greetings.
When reading I notice an immense desire to make gnu / linux something commercial, I repeat it, gnu / linux is not listed on stock exchanges and it is not a company either.
Are the people who collaborate to obtain programs and an operating system that is not something commercial, that is, their purpose is not to make money, or perhaps if they manage to earn money they will distribute a few dollars to all of us who use?
Developers who want to make money already have windows and mac to develop ... I don't know who calls gnu / linux when they already know what the rules are here ... I mean the same rules that made it born and grow and of course continue with good health.
gnu / linux is community, it is solidarity… .it is not a company! the sole purpose of a business is to make money and it should be.
Please don't keep insisting on unifying distros and making gnu / linux an enterprise.
What you should NEVER do is compare "unauthorized" or "illegitimate" Closed and Private Software; With Free Software to use wherever, however, whenever, for whatever and always fit:
- HONEST
- PROFESSIONAL
- 100% LEGITIMATE
It simply does NOT APPLY.
It is not a VALID alternative to use Closed and Privative Software being a CRIME who uses it in an "unauthorized" or "illegitimate" way, and this is not said by me, the owners of said software say it, it is a CRIME.
Just in case, I'm not a "sesual stallmaniac", that's why I use Kubuntu.
I can live with non-free stuff (drivers, kernel blobs, codecs, etc.), but as long as I can use them legitimately.
In my case I have a mini-printing press and Free Software and Linux are my ONLY viable alternatives, using other things would be ANTI-ECONOMIC and COUNTERPRODUCTIVE.
the trojan was armed 😛
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
😉
and with that this flame ends. Thanks @Ed for the fire extinguisher.
The article is a little long, in short, Linux users are so diverse and strange that perhaps for some who have not read the manifestos of Free Software and the Philosophy on which the collaboration is based, they do not understand what the Linux world is, when less for me Using Linux and Free Software, it is a lifestyle
excellent post friend!
I also think it is a flame, but honestly in the discussion that is mounted, you can learn a lot about free software and Linux. Go Linux !! .... sorry Go Gnu-Linux !!!
At the moment I thought I was reading the letter written by BiLL GATES in the 80's, sorry but I disagree in some lines of your article
The best thing would be to gradually replace proprietary software to avoid falling into a crossroads. I disagree on most of your points of analysis.
I saw this post on Taringa, and what caught my attention is that the comments are quieter than those here.
http://www.taringa.net/posts/linux/17179271/Linux-no-es-una-religion.html
I'm not saying that everyone agrees, but that they know the philosophy of gnu / linux.
You lost the pandev92 floor in a part and to show a simple wording: it happens to you the same as to the subjects who believe that what they see on the cinema screen is everything, let me explain, you say that proprietary software cannot be similar to slavery human that no one has a gun in the hundreds to force to use a certain application, well, look what a coincidence, my new laptop comes with a Windows 8 that does not serve me for my work, this due to its restrictions which I can get around easily but obviously not having permissions, for which I have to pay a few thousand, (for the version of windows in which I go to work, should I remember that they change it as it comes out of the balls and force the update otherwise they leave you without work ? programmed obsolescence and perceived obsolescence, xox macho how much money just to do my job) makes me illegal so I can't use or exploit my work freely, which is surprising with my system (They should have come out on the side after all of my nickname xD) if it allows me legally and it is more if I can contribute to its improvement as gratitude I do it and incidentally buy records with their distributors to financially support the project (Every time there is a new stable version, this does not As an obligation but as a return to the project that gives me everything from the beginning without asking for anything in return, look at what a difference, it reminds me of when I buy commercial licenses on Jamendo even if I do not use them commercially, so the pasta is not problem if you do not practice them), that is to say and in a few words it is a more honest practice that integrates you as an individual, I would like to see that IOS or Windows do that, that by the way that Windows 8 will cost me a few dollars There are too many without wanting it and being forced to do so because the company from which you buy it is forced to do so, and no, it is not with a gun in the hundred today we are the business society and it is precisely with that with which it is threatened, that is, it no longer stays on a simple screen but affects you in what is misnamed real life, and beware that you can use nobody's "bullet" forcing you to buy that brand , that there are brands with laptops that use free or clean software, well, if you see that I know and guess what ... I will have to wait 6 months for them to send me one like that from Spain because they did not have one with what I needed in these 3 months But that kindly and with a great service they will prepare it for me, if we count that freedom is to do what you want with your time, and money represents time and effort, a simple restrictive strategy I already spent money and time for it my freedom, abusing and controlling what I can or cannot choose 😉 (this is a wink right? if not XD please tell me what the wink is), and of course if we go further by law you cannot sell Hardware with a Software included and less obliged, which was missing XD, they are illegal practices;).
Now my contribution owo, if there were not so much misinformation in this of systems, software and technology in general, analog blackouts (among many other things) around the world would not have alienated thousands if not millions of people in the world, Just by naming Spain, many communities have no way of watching television (regardless of whether television does good or bad, these people do not even have that opportunity and Spain is more than Madrid, Barcelona or Andalusia) due to the high costs of the equipment necessary to signal reception, which are not expensive due to their development or construction but are expensive due to the restrictions of the systems and the cost of their licenses (I "made" a "smart television" with a usb and a flat screen to minimum cost 10 dollars XD, to do it with a windows system I get more than four thousand dollars for the fucking licenses and permits -.-, as an example for the difference in costs), that you are not from SpainWell, an example is also Hispanic, the digital blackout in Tijuana could be done with a cost per equipment of 80 dollars maximum, of course if it were not for some abuse of certain companies;), but the blackout was not done because the equipment is Even at 900 dollars (not all but many) that people cannot buy, how do you expect a family that earns 10 or 100 dollars a week to buy them? It is worth noting that most of the people who are affected by the analog switch are something like 60 or 70 percent of their population, but you say that what happens with software is not the same as what happens with people, what if I tell you that they are given abusive credits that by a miracle or they will never be able to pay (and beware that the crisis we are experiencing was forged by precisely credits and junk products that gave life to more bubbles, nowadays people are suicidal in Spain because they are evicted, just so you can see that the points are connected beyond what you think, if these people will never or with miracles be able to pay those credits, it highlights that whoever gives them is in the debt business, business that greatly helped today's crisis 😉) to buy devices that abuse their little known information? What if I tell you that that television or television signal is paid for thanks to their taxes and in fact they should have the right to choose what type of technology to use and not be forced for whatever reasons? Because things change, which leads me to say that the software is more about you or me that we know about this world, there are people out there who are abused of their misinformation and the practices of certain companies profit from it, the abuse. Beyond the people behind a desk, be it artists, creatives, academic engineers and a long etc., the practices really enslave people, it is like the phenomenon that YouTube really kills, today and as a result of thousands of videos. species around the world are being married for entertainment and possession of the people who saw them on youtube, now do you understand pandev92 that things go beyond what you see on your screen and / or your personal world?
In conclusion and easy words, parties agree with you for good reasons and also disagree for more and good reasons, by the way I already see the one who will try to burn me for writing so much but damn if you don't explain yourself you don't understand and then like me here I only have as a means of expression the comment box looks very tight xD. Finally I agree with: Linux is not a religion, more than religion I would say dogma or, -, and in my previous opinion in another article I was clear about it, The systems whatever they are are tools just that. "A hammer is a hammer, it is used to hammer or what do you want it for, to wear it as an earring?"
Respectful greetings, in case this wording does not seem respectful xux is the problem of forging an opinion and arguments these two are sometimes not velvety, again respectful greetings owo.
You have mixed many things that have nothing to do with each other.
First, you confuse that an OS is used by 90% of the pc population, with being obligated. If a pc comes with windows 8, I remove windows 8 and put whatever I want, now, if your work requires windows because the applications you use are only for windows, because microsoft does not have the problem, it does the company that decided it would only work with windows.
The analog blackout thing doesn't make much sense. They could easily put on a channel plus satellite dish, and see something more decent. I was three years without being able to see tdt because of a building, and I am grateful that it could not be seen, because for what they put: D….
That there is 5, 6% of the population without a television signal, the truth is very little ^^, at the same time the analogue, there was 2 or 30% of the population that saw it badly, therefore they did not see it.
The crisis in Spain, unlike the rest of Europe, comes from the banks, the government and the very people who like to get into debt and prefer to be working, to invest in some project.
It should also be taken into account that the official number of unemployed would differ, if we counted all the people who work in black 🙂
That people are abused by their misinformation is simply because of them, in any case they enslave themselves. On evictions, because when you take out a loan, you have to be prepared for it, the state is not at fault, and once again, the ignorance of the citizen causes bad results. If you earn 1100 euros a month, it is stupid to buy a house for 300 thousand euros. But since we are used to blaming the state of everything, because we think he is a dad ... well look.
I think you have not finished mixing well, because you mixed concepts that are not at all similar to each other.
But do you think that if there were real chances of finding a decent and properly secured job, there would be so many people getting into the puddle of working "in black"?
The State and its related media are also fully responsible for spreading this ignorance, because it really suits them. Let's not forget that the most coveted object in this commodified society is money.
A round of applause for you.
Guys, I've been reading this blog for over a year!
I love Pandev92's op-ed, despite the controversy it may have sparked. 100% agree!
I encourage you to continue in your line, you have a lot of personality, despite the fact that constructive comments do not always come out. You contribute much more than knowledge, and your opinion is as necessary as knowing how to use Linux.
regards
I wrong my username ... discudpalme
You are absolutely right, I had also fallen into dogma before and was a fan of Linux and Ubuntu in particular, but as you say you cannot force anyone to use this or that operating system, no matter how much we think it is better , extremes are always bad. a greeting from Barcelona
But defending the use and philosophy that promotes free software does not make you religious, it simply makes you a user and enthusiast. Another thing is that the slightest criticism is accepted and that everything else is considered as sin on Earth ... which in certain circumstances could be, but not necessarily.
The philosophy part, in my opinion, is that of the GNU project, which Linux embraced in its beginnings, Linux is the executive part of GNU that is much more. The binomial is (almost) perfect, take one part, the other or all, you choose = FREEDOM.
"Everyone has the freedom to stop using what they use and change programs, there is no one person pointing to the hundreds for us to use a closed program." Nor does Stallman come with an AK-47 and force you to install Trisquel; But we all know the "tricks" that proprietary software companies use to chain you (in a metaphorical sense, of course 😉) to their products.
"We must not forget the purpose of GNU!" I do not see that this statement is fundamentalist, it only tries to keep alive the values for which free software began to be produced.
My note: One more of the 1.998.923 lousy posts that try to brand as fundamentalists (the Taliban are a thing of the past, we no longer call them that) those who defend free software. Regards.
Let's see. A couple of notes. The first, Linux is not a religion, we agree there, but it is not just a piece of software either. Whether you want to interpret one way or another according to the ideological convictions of each one, Linux is also a philosophy, a philosophy that complements the referred software, because it was created and designed with a mentality, we could say almost philanthropic, in front of the prevailing trend at the time, when absolutely all the software was proprietary.
I also have to refer to the excess of liberalism that you clearly show in phrases such as "In human free will, there is also the possibility of taking freedom from other human beings, something that has happened thousands of times and unfortunately will continue to happen", with which You mythologize free will as the absolute paradigm of freedom, but either the concept of freedom is contradictory or the idea we have of "living in freedom" is. To what extent can we consider freedom exemplary? One must be cautious when using the free will argument, because it could justify unfortunate events. That is why ethically everything has a limit, and free will as you call it does not respect the limit between your freedom and that of your neighbor, therefore, a mechanism must be introduced that can ensure the freedom of one and of other. And it may sound daring and even contradictory, but to guarantee an acceptable level of freedom, a restriction must be placed on it to avoid the "excesses of freedom" that some may take.
In terms of software, the GPL license was developed with this idea, a license that makes the licensed software free and also ensures that it will remain free in the future.
The extremely liberal-minded, with whom I think you have the most in common, developed the BSD license.
Next note. When you say "proprietary software does not take away your freedom, it gives you a choice" you confuse and mix software freedom with human freedom. If we talk about software freedom, there is effectively no freedom worth it. The company is the one that dictates the conditions of use, which are limited to strict personal consumption, and there is nothing more to talk about. If we talk about personal freedom, of course you have the option to use it or not to use it, but if you want to use it you have to conform to the conditions of use, which at no time contemplate modification or redistribution. And that's the freedom we talk about when it comes to software.
Third. To support your hypothesis, you say that if someone releases a program that they have developed, "someone would come, take the code, improve it and its application would surpass the original, with minimal effort, thus leaving the original creator at a competitive disadvantage" , which I do not agree with at all, because if that program really has a great job behind it, I do not think that improving it and making it superior to the original will be done by anyone with the "minimum effort" that you point out here, which is a undervaluation and a lack of respect for the work of one and the other.
And finally, the phrase par excellence with which the liberals try to justify everything: "There is no one person pointing us to the hundreds to use a closed program." And there I tell you that perhaps not literally, but many times it is figuratively, such as if we are forced at work or in studies to use a certain proprietary program, or to use a certain format. How would we be if Linux had not emerged? Having to go through the ring of Microsoft or Apple.
Yes, very true, because one of those freedoms is the freedom to choose to be free or not, if you want to, you are and if not, then no
A message from Microsoft stirred your conscience hehehe… The developers managed to do it like the creator of Facebook did… I remember you when there was the dispute of the browsers in the 80s Netscape sent Microsoft released internet explorer for free and The entire company was bankrupt and its workers were left without a job, a family man, if freedom was implemented there? Why will it be? I leave you that question ...