"Every conviction is a prison" : Friedrich Nietzsche
A little less than a month ago, our colleague Nano wrote a editorial article in which he expressed his opinion on the very specific case of a user, known as The Archers, that he was abandoning the use of free software and, consequently, his "freedom." The reason that the user uses, and that is the bottom of his point, is that within the world GNU / Linux freedom has been more of a hindrance than a tool well used to achieve significant progress. The fact that after his defection he decides to use MacOSX o Windows is irrelevant, the point is Why does an enthusiastic Linux user end up annoyed to the point of abandoning its use and, in addition, a blog dedicated to GNU / Linux topics, among other things?
It is not my intention to crucify The archer by your decision, I think Nano It has already done this quite effectively, but I will try to be thoughtful about it. Many times I have commented that it is difficult for me to understand what kind of freedom is spoken of in the world GNU / Linux, and it is not a question of being explained to me about the freedom to use, modify and distribute free software because I understand it well.
I share with The archer the concept that a misguided freedom leads nowhere, even when that freedom is for the noblest of purposes, because the main dilemma, to begin with, is How, within this framework of freedom, are we going to respect our differences?; even more How are we going to reconcile them so that, despite these differences, we can establish a common path?
The first thing that seems to me to be understood is that the ones we use Linux We do it for different reasons: there are those who use it for philosophy; others because they are free and some simply because we like it. And each of us, as a user, has a very different expectation than what we expect of Linux As a tool, whether for work or fun, we adapt it according to our tastes and the possibilities of our technical skills.
Freedom… synonymous with greater development?
In theory, an environment of freedom should be a catapult for creativity, and in many cases it is, however, just freedom is not enough for all these developments to have a good end ... for that human and financial resources are required.
I only know of three ways to obtain money to finance a project: investing your own capital; through the financing of an institution and with the contributions of users. The first two are complicated, because whoever invests a capital does so with the intention of, at least, recovering the capital invested, let's not talk about a profit. The third option depends on the goodwill of the users, but How willing are Linux users to pay for good free software if they were forced to?
Well, to get an approximate answer it would be nice to see the exercise done on the companion blog Very Linux: Poll: Would you pay to use GNU / Linux? whose conclusion is Pay to use GNU / Linux? It will be that no ....
In it we can read a whole range of reasons why these users would not be willing to pay to use free software, most of them based on a misunderstood freedom. This is where freedom ends up preventing the development of competitive free software because faced with the freedom to have the option of paying or not paying… a great majority choose not to pay.
Freedom… synonymous with greater understanding?
This has not worked either since this freedom is not at the service to distinguish the coincidences of those who think differently, but to give us the stubborn task of pointing out our differences and abounding in grievances. It does not unite, it separates. It even serves to disqualify good proposals only by origin of their authorship.
Today in the morning elav and I commented on a phrase from Steve Wozniak which, in general terms, expresses that the worst thing that can exist for creativity is a committee. Curiously, it is very similar to the posture of Mark Shuttleworth and "This is not a democracy". Anyone who has tried to develop an idea and / or a project when a hundred different people think about it will know what I am talking about: everyone thinks they are right and everyone wants to impose whether this idea is a practice or not ... meanwhile the development of software that could be a trigger, like Gimp o inkscape, they are still being held because no one wants to concede or at least understand what graphic designers really need.
Personally, I cannot applaud, much less say that a freedom is good in which the main freedom is curtailed: that of being. No principle of freedom gives us the right to criticize those who use and stop using Linux. Everyone is free to make the decision that best suits them. But worst of all, even the same users of Linux have differences between them: those of Unity against those of Cinnamon… and backwards; those of GNOME against those of KDE… and backwards; those of Banshee against those of Clementine… and backwards.
And I agree with you Archer; ends up tiring.
Bravo for you, this article is the best I read in months.
I agree with you, look, I use LinuxMint because I like it, both the distro, the packaging, and the artwork, even Clem's ideas I like and all his initiatives. And I use Gnome for three-quarters of the same.
But on the other hand I use Opera in the same way that someone else uses Mac, that is, I cannot criticize for using a proprietary system when I use proprietary software. And I also don't care, I use the software that best meets my demands. I am also a Windows user (only for games but I am) and I play the original Battlefield 3 and I do not worry about morality when using proprietary software.
And I never criticize KDE, Ubuntu or anything, everything seems fine to me, if there are options it is for them to be used, also the development of LM depends on Ubuntu, so I am consistent and the more users Ubuntu has, the better for me. I really use Linux because for me it is the most functional, and also I am in love with the console (hehe), the most powerful tool on my OS.
Completely agree with you.
There is no freedom, but the search for freedom, and that search is what makes us free.
Carlos Fuentes
But the search ties us to the chains of nonconformity
I think that GNU / Linux becomes a metaphor for cosmic entropy or for the evolution of living organisms. Under this banner, users of very diverse natures are grouped, each one with their own path, with their own interests ... And I think that is precisely the good thing about this world. Linux does not seek to dominate the market or to supplant Windows; it consists of being Linux, in its own way, with its strengths and weaknesses. It is true that Gimp, for example, may not be comparable to Photoshop and that is why many designers do not take it seriously, but it is still a great program that will satisfy the needs of many; this is more than enough.
I don't think there is a real need for all Linux users to agree and walk in the same direction; that would be very boring and would go against the nature of humanity. As for the trolls thing, I personally do not care for them. It is very sad that there are users who are dedicated to criticizing other people for having different preferences, and I consciously pass by when I see sensational news that favors this type of discussion (in MuyLinux it is the daily bread, so to speak). If someone else prefers Gnome, KDE or putting the Windows logo in the background ... perfect for her, and the same with any other type of choice. It is your right to defend even the indefensible, and evangelizing has never been a laudable practice.
But despite the problems you name in the article, I doubt Linux will ever tire me out. I have become too fond of him, with Arch I have created a system in my image and likeness, based on my needs ... However, in the end we could say, in a philosophical sense, that the origin of GNU / Linux problems is In essence, GNU / Linux, but the human being and his complete inability to behave in a minimally rational way. Our gregarious mentality tends to make us believe that the group is better, that unity is preferable ... but unity and cohesion, sometimes, require the sacrifice of individuality, a question that for me comes first.
Without going into irrelevant philosophical statements about what freedom is (or rather, to use a Schopennhaüer term, "the feeling of freedom"), suffice it to say that, as Pandev92 says, paraphrasing very well to Carlos Fuentes, freedom itself does not exist. The human being loses it since he is born, because, as a social entity, he must surrender, or delegate, part of his freedom to society, so that it imposes rules that allow him to live in community. So, no one is free to do what they want, ergo, freedom does not exist except as a fantasy, as a search that we have the freedom to undertake or not.
In Linux this freedom, as a concept and in my view, is related, beyond choosing tools or desktops or distributions, with the control (to a greater or lesser extent) that is acquired over a tool (the PC) that Today, it is essential and basic for many of us (it is a work tool, leisure center, place of creation and inspiration, means of communication, window to the world, etc.) Therefore, its use is an important part of our lives. I use Linux because I want to have the most complete control (and that control is my feeling of freedom) over the aspects of my life in which I can choose, that what is not in the pure hands of destiny, is in mine.
And that I have explained in the comments of that article ... I already said I am not the one to crucify anyone for leaving GNU / Linux, that my great discomfort and complete disagreement is in labeling each system as "functional only for something" saying that Linux is only to learn, that Windows to play and Mac to design and the rest ...
As someone who supports freedom, it doesn't bother me that everyone uses anything as long as they like it, but to generalize by saying that people who use Mac or Windows "consciously" renounce their freedom, come on, that few even know that they can have it or at least have something similar and that those systems use not because they want to but because it is what they know.
I repeat, everyone is, in effect, owner of himself and knows what to do, Archer can use and disuse. Why not? But I can't give my support to the aforementioned, I'm sorry ... But don't call me an executioner or an inquisitor either, please.
Free software gives us freedom (that we all know) but some take advantage of free software to do whatever they want without taking others into account. Then libertine software appears, a product that paralyzes projects and then destroys them. Sometimes its effect is so disastrous that it damages third-party projects.
But there are very neat and efficient projects championing open source. In my opinion, these projects have one or more leaders who channel community work. A project without leaders is a chicken without a head (and we all know what happens to those chickens).
+1 that's why Mint is doing so well, because Clem knows how to materialize his ideas, direct and listen at the same time.
Very interesting the author's proposal. I could say that you have written down in an almost ideal way the problems that free software faces.
Fragmentation, which many users see as a good thing, is a problem. Many excellent projects see the light of day and soon die of starvation. The explanation given for this is that, if it did not arouse interest from the community, the project is useless. I think it is a poor answer.
Many excellent projects are at a standstill, or are progressing very pitifully due to lack of support and the wrong channeling of community efforts.
The solution is not simple, but the answer to this problem is that free software finally triumphs or perishes, valued as a utopia.
Linux is freedom by nature. It gives you the tools and makes it easy for you to walk where and where you want. But another thing is the concrete projects, where you have to focus attention based on the objectives set. Here we only come to fruition when each participant is clear about their attributions (and those of the others) within the project, being necessary to minimize external interference without this meaning restricting the freedom of anyone.
On Linux you go like a dog without a chain. With Microsoft and Apple, the dog can be just as well-groomed, but it is always on a chain.
I started in Linux thanks to Ubuntu, that is to say, at the moment when Linux stopped being something indescribable and complicated for me. Today I do not have the great knowledge that they say a Linux user should have. I have simply adapted to using Linux and to solve the problems that may have arisen. Neither more nor less than in Windows, only then ... either they solved them or I screwed up.
Reviewing Tina's article, and reviewing me, I use gnu / linux because I learn better how things work that I use in an operating system, because I like it (although you can get green gray when things don't work out), but above all because I like the feeling of community: that if you search you will have an answer, and more if there is a round trip with another person to solve something, or to think about a project. It encourages solidarity, brotherhood (sometimes competition, only if you are guided by that stupidity of meritocracy and elitism that exists in some communities), and yes ... for me it is important that the tools are free, and for the only reason would pay would be for the support that contains that software, or if the developer asks for donations at will to continue, or if he trades his work at low costs for social, NOT commercial purposes. Although the 4 freedoms host the idea of commerce and business schemes (Stallman is not a Zen guru, he likes money, the only thing he criticizes is whether something is free or not, which is sometimes heavy), I do not I see it that way, for gnu / linux it belongs to the working people, not the companies, and that is why many business ideas go to hell, because there is a vast majority of users (who unknowingly many) do not move with that consumerist logic. I agree that more and more foundations, labor cooperatives and social economy are emerging around free software, than the monopoly of some. GNU / linux is how the internet was once: a paradise of freedom, or as some said, in search of it. The free software philosophy does not attack private property, and I think it should. But hey, that's my point of view on the subject, and I respect other opinions of course.
Amen!
Even though I don't like the word I'm going to say now, it is undoubtedly the truth ... «what you have written has reflect about various things »
I edited the post and put it in the category of «Recommended», it is the least it deserves 🙂
He was missed reading you, your posts are one of the best we have 😀
About the post, I share several points of yours. For example ... if I consider that X software is good, brilliant, if it costs $ 15 and I consider that it is worth it, without a doubt I pay it to use this software. Now, that economically I cannot (believe it or not ...) is another thing, that is, if I could pay it I would. Do not go to the extreme of thinking: «but how can this crazy person be charged for that software ... if it is software for Linux, he is crazy gggrr" or something like that.
About constantly being in Gnome VS KDE fights and things like that, the reason that many times I participate (or believe) in these is simple. If I read the opinion of X user and I see that it is not objective, something like: «archlinux is rubbish, i haven't used it but its rubbish, ubuntu is the best»Or«debian is not the best either, the best is ubuntu because it is the one with the most users"Or something like that ... believe me, I can try but I can't stay without comment. My problem is not with the distro (in 99% of cases), but with the user. I give you an example, elav and I personally know an official Debian developer and Ubuntu official too, this guy uses Ubuntu ... do you think elav Or do I criticize him for using Ubuntu? Come on, no kidding. why not? Well, because he is someone extremely intelligent, VERY intelligent, he knows how to be objective and his decision will be made with the knowledge of many other distros, what I am trying to say is that he uses Ubuntu because he wants to, not because of ignorance of other distros.
In summary …
I criticize users who say that X product (be it distro, environment, etc.) is better than another or the rest, when they do not even know that other or that rest in depth.
Greetings and really, EXCELLENT post 😀
PS: have you already read this one? https://blog.desdelinux.net/todo-en-gnulinux-tiene-que-ser-gratis/
What would be interesting is to talk about GNU / Linux, but not in terms of freedom, but otherwise (I don't want to say slavery, but something like that)
I know the word: dependency
Excellent article, like the rest you have done 🙂 From what I see, I am one of those who do not strictly follow free software, I always have one or another owner, since the truth is that I only use GNU / Linux because I find it interesting, different, more that a hobby has become my lifestyle. Every so often I go back to Windows, I miss Linux, because just Windows (I don't like using the $ at the end), it doesn't feel the same. I don't like to be criticizing the OS, because I know that everyone has the right to use whatever they want.
I just need it to work, I don't want it to only have free packages, I want it to be fast, but still beautiful. I've only found that here, I can have one as fast or pretty as I want.
For this reason, everyone who uses the programs / environments they need, because that is what the alternatives are for. If we were all the same, the world would be very boring.
I do not blame "The Archer" for wanting to return to Windows, I am not going to criticize him, if he just did not feel comfortable, no matter how hard he tried, there is no other way.
Greetings, and I repeat, tremendous article Tina! You look like a poet (? XD
I'm going to write this comment trying to look crazy 😛
I read a long time ago that the attractiveness of Linux is the intellectual challenge that the daily fact of making "x" function in Linux (such as making the HDMI port pull / work) brings, the performance and certain functionalities that we surpass other OS's are just the plus.
Human beings (and this is the part that sounds kind of strange) we tend to interact in society more than by nature because of a need not to feel alone (it is the truth, nobody wants to be alone, nobody….), The fact of fighting With other people and wanting to impose our persecution involves us in an exercise which makes us feel "part of a mechanism", elevates our ego and gives us comfort.
I have always admired how free communities generate fork of "x" application whose destiny is to die, nothing forces them, they do it naturally and I have also seen how they do not agree on an insignificant "x" detail, after reaching stop the development of a project.
But in the end, the people who overcome these obstacles, not only grow as computer scientists (or whatever title they want to give them), but also grow in their situation as a human part of a community.
At the moment it is a problem, I remember that Linus torvald said that he only worked by mail, nothing person to person, because otherwise they would not work well. 😉 maybe we should go back to that! hehehe greetings!
Error, I do
For me, the free software problem started when the labels appeared. Instead of having a single operating system called Linux, there are many that do pretty much the same thing. Instead of having an application called "only software to listen to music" there is Clementine, Banshee, Rithmbox, etc. The same with all programs, environments and distros. An illustrative case is that of Mint. Instead of creating an application or theme in which the appearance of Ubuntu is changed, it was decided to create a distro 99% equal to it with another desktop environment and other colors in the appearance.
Linux has two paths: either it continues to fragment or it becomes unified. Fragmentation will mean more discussions, less application development (because there will be groups of developers creating similar applications) and fewer new Linux users, who will be scared off by so much clutter. At the end of the day, it will be bad for Linux.
On the other hand, I am against those who think that by using Windows or Mac OS people lose their freedom and become clones without independence. They also make their choice. Within these worlds there are also people who do not have the same tastes among themselves, and can materialize their differences without having to resort to another operating system. That is something we have to take into account.
Well Buueeee…. !!! New to Linux, it seemed like a good way to learn from something I did not know, to see that the people behind what I see on my laptop are much smarter than me, but I still do not understand how they can be so busy looking for the imperfections of the other distributions, (if you try to help improve them), instead remember and redirect yourself to the real philosophy of this ...! make it different… FREE not necessarily FREE, FREEDOM HAS A PRICE… .but it cannot be as high as BILL and his Companions think… I agree with basic packages, but also that special benefits should have their economic efforts… ES SAY YOU ARE FREE TO GO WHERE YOU WANT, but you are also free to get on the transport that you want or go on foot…. paid (free) or Free (free)… ..Que Queres Vos?
I just read the article that they index from here, I dealt with thearcher, we had a community that did not work among four GNU / Linux users, because of my dealings with him I can only speak well, he is a great person who was always at the foot cannon helping everyone.
I do not see well extrapolating an article of his, without observing everything that he has contributed in that same blog, just because I do not agree with his opinion.
Let's be civil, we can give our opinion, but respecting others and their ideas. Teatcher said many things, there is no q
Of course, this is just my opinion, if you don't like it, skip it, but you don't need to insult me for having a different opinion, that's dictatorial.
Wow, I sent without finishing writing.
Well, it's not important either.
Greetings.
PS- The way is to spread free software, not to fight among its users.
Well, what I see in the position of The Archer is someone who has been overcome by freedom. For the record, I say this with respect and without the intention of offending.
Who more or who less, we have all felt that kind of frustration making decisions among so much variety in the Linux world. Many times it can happen that someone feels lost, overwhelmed by total freedom of choice.
Imagine a child in the largest and most varied jelly bean shop in the world. What if we said to him "Pick just one jelly bean, whatever you want, and it will be yours"? It would probably take longer to choose it than to eat it later. This is what happens to us distrohoppers (we have all jumped from one distro to another, at least for some time), we search for the perfect distro and get tired of the search. We search and search, but in the end we are left with ours. And we will always have the fly behind our ear: will there be a distro that serves me better than the one I use today?
The same can be applied to desktop environments.
It is necessary to differentiate if one has tired of Linux, or if one has simply tired of making decisions, choosing, investigating, testing. If Linux turns out not to be the problem, the solution is easy: Stick with what you have. Don't investigate for a while. Stay comfortable until you regain strength or want to keep trying.
I've been using Xubuntu 11.04 myself for a long time and I have to say it's fine, but we all know it's not the best. I have a horrible desire to try new distros, dedicate time, learn Arch from the base, and many more things ... But since I am in exams continuously and I cannot dedicate much time to leisure, I am satisfied. It works for me and it works for me. Could be better, could optimize performance. But it does the service I need, and that's fine for me.
Before moving to Mac or Windows, I prefer to choose a majority distro (that's why the help in forums) and not question my choice, but try to adapt everything to my needs. Ultimately, that's what those who really have no choice do: adapt their Mac or Windows (if possible) to their needs.
I don't know if people will agree with this.
A greeting.
After reading Archer's original entry, and now Tina's text, I just say that the fragmentation will still be there whether we like it or not. As people well mention, they all have their own way of doing things, hence the proliferation of so much software in the repositories, each one different. This system goes a long way. I don't think that creativity or freedom are restricted by having different options for the same thing; It seems to me rather a better way to feed back and improve day by day, at a dizzying pace at an ever-forward step. Maybe that's what they call selection.
The "holy wars" are always going to be there too, it just makes us look at the classics of Gnome vs KDE, Ubuntu vs Debian, Vim vs Emacs. Read the comments from years ago and read some recent ones, you will find almost the same thing. Better get past them.
As for the users and the payment for the distributions, because from the outset nobody can force them to pay something that they do not want to pay; although you really see their lack of support in several stagnant projects, and on the other hand they only seek to demand and claim functionalities. A real shame that such functional and long-lived software is condemned to oblivion for lack of support from its community.
I think the best thing is not to "get so passionate" about these issues, total, in the end everyone will continue to use and do what they please. And they are within their rights, that simple.
Greetings.
I started using Linux in April 2008, when Ubuntu released Hardy Heron, apenitas apenitas, all because Vista just rigged not to work and trolled me with the blue screen of death. It was about "either you learn to use this thing, or you learn" and it was re-learning things that I used to use in windows, but with its free cognate. Since then I have not left Linux, because another reason is the licensing costs, my dad just looked at me ugly the day we were supposed to buy the original disk of an antivirus and threatened not to give me a penny more for LOL programs ... Another good reason to be on Linux. And one day I don't know how, but in 2009 I got to know Linux Mint, with the promises of coming better configured than Ubuntu, which was true at the time, but before I spent testing more and more distros, until I decided that Mint products satisfy my needs.
What is my story about? I see that, although freedom is as ambiguous a term as good and evil, it is something necessary. Perhaps because of that decision The Archer will lose the opportunity, not of a good system, but of meeting great people, he has sacrificed his effort to promote free software to perhaps pay for licenses or crack what he uses ... Who knows, that was his decision and it was free to do whatever you want. I agree that although users are divided between more distros come out, we have different needs and the uses of each team are unique, and that is where the true meaning of freedom comes in, to use what suits us.
Although, the ideal is for Linux to be unified ... Wouldn't it be falling into the error of its private powers? Would we not be killing many good proposals, that even if they do the same in x, yoz distro not everyone would be happy? That happens with private things ... They put something on you and you look for another program that does the same thing, but that you like and that's it ...
For me it is difficult to choose a side, if it works for me, they do not force me to pay high costs and it is relatively easy, it is welcome.
Congratulations, Tina. It's good to read you again! She missed you. I hope you continue writing in Desde Linux more often. Greetings.
I understand what you are saying, but it seems to me that the reflection could be extended to human behavior in general and to thread finer with the advancement of technology and communications; paradoxically we are increasingly isolated.
We are probably in a transition stage and it is only about adaptability to a change, I hope that it will be so, but my optimism sometimes fades when I see that in the new generations the problem worsens even more, the practice of intolerance and discrimination are a constant on the rise.
I also read all the comments, many of them very interesting, but in particular I stopped at this paragraph of @Wolf's comment:
Sorry, the paragraph I mention is the following:
but unity and cohesion, at times, require the sacrifice of individuality, an issue that comes first for me.
They are two perfectly valid points of view. I prefer little centralized societies in which the individual, despite abiding by general codes and respecting others, can do and undo at will - as far as possible, of course. I do not like centralist states, nor do I like societies in which different ideas are rejected without a shadow of a doubt.
No one denies that it is necessary to contribute to the collective good, but where is that collective good? Be careful, unity and the collective good are very different things. The history of humanity speaks rather of unity to wage holy, economic wars or various outrages, and not of improving the situation of the hungry, beaten by power. There is even unity in passivity, the great evil of our time.
That is why I prefer respectful individualism to unity for the "common evil", which is what is done in the present. Otherwise, I would be the first to sacrifice myself for the greater good, but after many years of observation and reflection, I highly doubt that humanity is capable of such a thing.
A greeting :).
Error, the users who have differences are the ubuntoos, they are the ones who are throwing shit at the other distros and insulting their users.
The others don't
I think the concepts freedom y gratuity they get confused too often, which unfortunately misinforms many about the essence of free software.
Let no one have any doubt: freedom It has a cost. Some developers are paid to make free software, others bear the costs with their own resources, and others seek funding through donations or services, but the cost is real, even if only in terms of time and effort spent.
Many users of commercial software (generally proprietary) begin to use free software with the illusion that they will always find the answer to all the needs they may need for free, which is not necessarily true. However, those who come to free software with the attitude of learning, experimenting, and benefiting from the accumulated knowledge will not be disappointed.
Every day there are more users who use Linux, FreeBSD and other free operating systems due to the quality and reliability that they are achieving, but few realize that this quality is a by-product of the freedoms that allow using and studying the applications developed by others and making improvements. and derivative works. Free software, in my opinion, promotes healthy competition, because it allows either to get involved and be part of the improvement of an application, or to take an existing code, fork it and make an alternative application that may be superior to the original and could eventually supplant it. , etc.
Surely some will think that in the world of proprietary software the strongest competition is still, and they are still right, but it happens that in this case those who win do not always do so by providing a better quality product, since there are many factors at play , which are not always clean.
To give just one example:
Some will remember Windows NT 4, the "granddaddy" of Windows XP. Microsoft made a Workstation version and a Server version. Some services simply couldn't be installed on the Workstation version (an intentional limitation), and the price difference between the two versions was abysmal. Microsoft claimed that this was because the Server version was specially optimized, until a user engaged in a byte-by-byte comparison of the two systems and discovered that the only existing "optimization" was a simple registry entry. Microsoft struggled to disprove the fact until a user published an application that effectively made it possible to convert a Workstation version to Server at no cost. All the money that corporations paid for this supposedly optimized system was not used to produce technological improvements, but mainly to increase the pockets of a few. In other words, they were scammed.
Now let's contrast this approach with that of pfSense (a free and free distribution to be used as a firewall): pfSense allows its users to offer a loot for a functionality that they want, but that does not exist yet. If others find such functionality interesting, they contribute to the loot, and so on until the loot reaches a certain sufficiently palatable sum. Finally one or more programmers develop the functionality and take the spoils, minus a small percentage that the project takes to sustain itself. Ultimately, the functionality is usually built into the next version of pfSense for the (free) benefit of others. Outcome? Everyone wins, in an honest way.
Working in a social research center has taught me not to trust the surveys too much, because the results depend to a great extent on the way they are prepared and especially on the population sample on which they are carried out.
Some of us live in poor countries and do not have enough money to pay for software, but if we were to earn, say $ 15 an hour, many of us would probably be willing to regularly contribute some money to sponsor a free software project that interests us. This is how some interesting and successful projects are maintained, like Linux Mint, for example.
For me the diversity of free software is a virtue rather than a defect. By the way, I don't know about you, but it is ironic to me that some Windows users claim that the diversity of distributions is the main flaw of Linux, and yet they do not complain about the enormous variety and dispersion (that is, that are not centralized) of existing applications for Windows.
Returning to the topic: discussions between supporters of one or another free project can really tire if one observes them without discernment. On the other hand, I find them extremely interesting, because in the heat of a discussion truths are usually released that in other circumstances would be reserved. If one is able to ignore resentment and subjectivity, and take only the objective elements that are criticized and the objective responses that these criticisms provoke, one can generally get a good idea of the strengths and weaknesses of the different projects.
On the other hand, it is evident that the creators of a project are the most influential when deciding the direction that the project will take, but if free software has something good, it is that if the direction is not liked by a sufficient number Interested and hard-working people can fork the code and create a new project that takes the desired direction, as has happened with LibreOffice, to take a relatively well-known example.
So although I recognize that the work around free software could be better organized (for example, I think more work should be done on the conformation of standards), I do not think that things are so bad, and a sample of this is that the majority of the most powerful supercomputers in the world use free operating systems (and it must be borne in mind that in such cases money is not a determining factor, because we are talking about hardware that costs many millions).
Sorry for the length of the comment, but I think this issue is central.
+1000000 ... and many more zeros ..
I subscribe to each and every one of your arguments, Hugo. I have read many opinions all over the Internet and, believe me, I give you honors.
A real pleasure to read you, boy.
Magnificent article, I liked it a lot.
The first post do not publish it to me please, with this phone keyboard I wrote the email wrong.
A greeting.
Good article, but I do not agree with what the friend did to abandon the flag for which I fight so much, that is to agree with the others and say that he failed.
The free software is understood, and I am only on Linux more for not being in the shade with cracks, tricks serials, keygenes and patches to evade authentication, which in itself I consider that this practice is to promote "crime". moral value can we talk about security or honesty if I have "pirated" programs on my machine? Now I am not a systems engineer, I did not even study something related to computer science, my field is health, and luckily I found Wine to run those programs made for W and for which I pay. I like to investigate, investigate, test, and believe me that if I had a half idea of how to make software, I would be helping free software grow; But since I cannot contribute knowledge, I make contributions from my resources to support these dedicated workers selflessly.
live free, die well
Free software and freedom do not tire when you know how to use them without any fanaticism. At no time would I leave the SL because it is better in many aspects. The person who wants to try many environments and many distros gets tired of using it, which is not productive for oneself.