Reviewing **'s statisticsDesdeLinux**, I have noticed something that is curious to say the least: there are very few who visit us using *100% free distributions*. Of course, the figures may vary more or less taking into account that not everyone configures the **User Agent** of the browser.
You may be wondering what the hell is this all about? It is very simple, this is a personal opinion article, with which you may agree or not, however, I think it is necessary and I propose, a respectful debate regarding what I will comment on below.
### Those who are, and those who claim to be
There are many types of users within the GNU / Linux world, but there are two of them especially to whom these lines are dedicated:
1. Those who use Free Software out of conviction (generally loyal followers of Stallman or his philosophy).
2. Those who use Free Software and try to sell you the image that they are like the first ones I mentioned.
Yes, I mean those users who promote, proclaim, evangelize Free Software, those who say they follow their movement, their ideas, and who comply 100% with the 4 freedoms of Free Software and yet deep down, they are nothing more than pure hypocrites.
Note that I do not want to offend, but the adjective is that and I clarify, I myself have sometimes become part of that group of users. I don't want to hurt anyone in particular with this comment as unfortunate as it may seem, but let's face the reality How many of us actually use 100% Free Software? How many of us do not use proprietary drivers, or applications that are not OpenSource?
Let the one who is free from sin raise his hand. I will speak to you from my experience, because as I said, I have sinned at times of being as hypocritical as many others.
Philosophy does not only live man
When I started using GNU / Linux the first thing that caught my attention was that it was free, different. Not having to use serial numbers or drivers for audio or video was something that always caught my attention and I loved it. At no time did I start using it because its applications were * OpenSource * and I could consult the source code, much less because it identified me with * THE PHILOSOPHY OF RICHARD STALLMAN *.
The advantages of using OpenSource software and the happy philosophy, I got to know later, as I was introduced to the GNU / Linux world, but if I'm honest, it always seemed excessively extreme that you have to use 100% Software Free all the time, out of conviction.
Don't get me wrong, it would be ideal, it would be great if there was no need to use proprietary drivers so that the graphics and effects are displayed correctly, or not using Flashplayer because the web already works completely on HTML5, or simply, not using Google Chrome or Opera and always use OpenSource alternatives .. Yes, it would be great, but we are far from that reality.
** There are many users who use GNU / Linux for things that go beyond philosophy **, or wanting to be "free". There are many users who use GNU / Linux because they feel like it, or because they like such an application or more like a desktop, and if we add to that the free and open, then better, right?
So there is a dilemma, if your ** AMD ** or ** NVidia ** card does not work well with the free drivers, what do you do, you are left without using Linux because using the proprietary one would be to give your soul to the devil?
I return to my experience. Although I have never needed to use proprietary drivers or closed source applications, I think that if I have to use them, period. I do not owe anybody any explanations for it, I have enough to try every day not to use anything that is closed source or that I have to hack.
I am aware of what it can mean for my privacy or security to use an application like Google Chrome (which by the way I DO NOT use it, but I could if I wanted to), and for that reason I do not have to stop recommending to everyone who may use it Free software. In fact, I use a lot of Google services and I'm even a happy Android user and still, I'm still a Free Software user.
I am not one of those people who tell you to use all OpenSource, I am one of those people who recommend using a GNU / Linux distribution for all the advantages that this entails, with the Software that allows you to have the best experience and meet your needs.
There is a lot of hypocrisy in the GNU / Linux world
If you are reading this and in any way feel offended, first of all, before making a comment, look in the mirror to see if you really are like ** Richard Stallman **:
- without mobile phone.
- without any device with which they can track you.
- without listening to .mp3 music or watching non-.ogg videos.
- without using closed compression formats.
- without using drivers or closed source software.
- without opening a .doc, or having an account in any cloud service.
- no webcams, bluetooth or wifi ..
to give just a few examples. And it is very, very difficult to achieve all this in today's world. Sure, unless you go on a plane and land on a desert island. What's more, RMS excuse me, but I'm sure (although I can't prove it right now) that at some point, whether you want to or not, you've had to use something that goes against your principles.
That is why my dear readers that I ask you, say NO to hypocrisy. Let's use GNU / Linux distributions for fun, for fun, for whatever we want, but let's not make a religion of it. If you can use everything 100% free, perfect, but you will not be less than the rest for having to use something that, even for very little, does not comply with the Free Software Foundation. Let's use the software we want, although if it's free, the better.
Yes Debianitas and Ubuntero, I am looking at you yourselves. ** Activating non-free repositories out of necessity, or because they just want to, is not a sin, it is a right that gives us the same freedom that some demand and others proclaim **.
To the "purest": Recommend using GNU / Linux and 100% free software if you want, but don't look at someone who uses something "that does not comply with * the philosophy * as a freak. Live and let live. And if you don't agree with what I think, fine, then use what you want, but think twice before lashing out at someone for thinking differently, for using something different, even if it's closed. If they really use everything 100% open, congratulations, but from here I tell you: it will not always be like this.
Well, I thought you were going to approach the article in a different way, but I still comment.
I have never been a fan of Free Software, not at least of the radical and closed aspect that Stallman defends, because I do respect other Free Software projects like KDE, which conform to the principles without appearing as a group of fanatics.
For me the biggest hypocrites are not those who use proprietary software in GNU / Linux, but those people who fill their mouths with Free Software and then use OS X. Then you try to find out which office suite it uses, to see if it uses LibreOffice or OpenOffice, but no, use Microsoft Office, then your favorite browser, and you see that Safari (its engine is Free Software, but the rest is not) and Google Chrome are the ones it uses, you start to investigate more and at most the only Free Software you see is Apache / NGINX, PHP and MySQL.
For me the worst thing is not that you defend Free Software, but that your mouth is filled with Free Software and then you use practically NOTHING, and then I blurt out the typical "is that in Free Software there are no good applications", when the there are galore these days.
I use GNU / Linux mostly because it saves me a lot of headaches in system maintenance, but honestly, I get mad at those people who fill their mouths with Free Software and then find a needle in a haystack more difficult that some Open Source application installed on the computer.
That's what I'm talking about.
If that's what the article is talking about, then it's stupid.
People are free to wear whatever they want, the same article says so.
And if they also want to speak and defend free software, no matter how much they use proprietary software, what is wrong with it?
It seems more hypocritical to me to say that everyone has the freedom to use whatever they want and then judge these people for using proprietary software and for being sympathetic to free software. There what they are doing is judging it both by the software they use and by their ideology.
Now if you hit the nail on the head !, I've known a lot of those ...
You have the right to use what you want, there are also needs.
Linux on Mac doesn't work so well, and if you already have OSX I don't know why you have to crucify it, and if you're already on safari, why condemn the user?
To program Java I recommend eclipse, it is quite complete and simple, I use Sublime Text and the console to program java, because I do that with all languages and I am used to that, I am hypocritical for that too?
It's like that no more. Everyone should feel free to use as needed.
In my case, in Debian it enabled the repo "non-free" because my hardware requires a driver for the WiFi.
I also listen to mp3s.
The rest is all OpenSource.
You have to be free of mind.
I share your opinion, I use Debian GNU / Linux (lxde edition with the nonfree repository) on an Intel Nuc (Celeron) and Fedora (workstation) on my lap (lenovo u310). Unfortunately Trisquel did not allow me to lift my Wifi card, since it requires open hardware, I have not had the opportunity to acquire a 100% free laptop although I have the firm intention of getting a thinkpad x210. Inexpensive free laptops are disappointing, and those with decent hardware cost 70% more than their non-free counterpart.
I think that the FSF also has to put more pressure on companies to release firewares and libraries, which is something that does not yet allow freer hardware.
Well that depends, many love linux, but in their jobs the computers they use or need are Windows, and from there they enter to review and comment on the page.
In my work I was lucky enough to be able to decide which system to use on my work PC and install my beloved Debian and I have been working for two years using my PC with Debian without any problems.
Strongly agree with the article.
I use Linux because I like it, not because it is free software, and I use free software because it works for me, not because it is free.
I neither defend free software nor attack it, the same with proprietary software. I just use what I like and work for me, and Linux and OS X like and work for me, that's why I use both.
I have never evangelized anyone to use free software, nor will I ever, but, I understand that it has its advantages, that's why I only publish about Linux and free software, and whoever wants to take it and whoever does not want to not take it .
I have always defended that everyone should use what they like and what works for them, call it Linux, Mac OS X or Windows.
It is only software, a tool at our disposal. Never an end or a religion.
Greetings.
The trouble with linux is that when there is no news, users get bored and wage their "mini wars".
If someone thinks he is Stalmann and grows a beard, what does others care about?
Exactly, who cares? The article does not make sense to me.
I understand and respect that 100%, what you do with your computer should be your business only. But the article goes further and says that by using Antergos, since it is not 100%, you can no longer preach soft. free.
Like you, you can defend using soft. proprietary, I defend the opposite, use the distro you use.
Using Parable and googling all day doesn't give me any more right to preach free software than using Manjaro and DuckDuckGo.
That is because you do not have a solid ethics and conscience, I use it because it is mainly free and 2 because of its functionality.
I would change the focus.
Instead of "hypocrites" for me they are a kind of "Taliban."
For me, instead of being hypocrites or Taliban they are… let's see what little word could that be?…. mmm…. I do not know, I leave it better in hypocrites.
Actually the word is "inconsequential", but what does it matter, if in the end everyone is free to act as they want.
Greetings partner, I have some time reading your blog and I really like the knowledge that you transmit, I work in a company in which they use proprietary software and the development is in java, not even openJDK (which I do not agree with) here I read his blog ... there is honestly a time when we are forced to work under conditions and it is beyond our hands, I sincerely wish that everything in this place were GNU / Linux but the reality is different and as soon as I get a freesource company and pay well ( with what I can cover my needs as equipment, transportation among other things) I will be on the side of the force, sorry if I cause you inconvenience
XD being a purist is impossible. I tried to walk completely free when I was in Debian, it only lasted 1 month without installing Flash and installing the audio codecs, because the need for it forced me.
+1 to the Elav post.
hahaha I'm the same, it lasted 1 week without flash and I couldn't resist anymore
The truth is that it is true, I am not preaching that of being 100% free (although I have committed the idiocy of forcing Linux years ago, but without reaching the extreme of hating), even for reasons of my university (and my work although to a small extent) I have and must use a dual boot with Win8.1, there are few things that I can say that are "OS-agnostic" and with which I feel comfortable
My personal opinion; I would add to your last paragraph: «Also think about your jobs and how you should bring your daily bread to the house, if for X or Y reasons the job offer is only from Windows, I don't think they will reject that offer, no matter how good that it is, as long as not to earn what allows them to live. If you are lucky to find a full-Linux offer, good for you »
You are in a serious error, the fact that we visit the site with systems that are not entirely free, may be due to many circumstances beyond our control 1st that the computer belongs to a client or third party- 2nd that the computer belongs to the laburo as It is my case - 3rd that we are testing other browsers - 4th that we are using a proprietary OS of a friend or relative's machine 5th that we are using a public network- 6th that we do not have another device at hand that is not the cell phone. 7th of last unless we have a machine designed by us, we also use proprietary hardware. In any case, it is not about hypocrisy but intelligence. The fact that we use a proprietary system or software, although we encourage the use of free software, clearly means that we take advantage of all systems and especially if we have had to pay for them. I bought my router, I also paid for my cell phone and for all the equipment or devices that I use at home. One of the things I hate is that there are some who encourage the use of SL but criticizing or disrespecting the freedom that others have to use proprietary software or hardware. I personally use what is convenient for me at home and in the work I use what I have on hand. In addition, absolute freedom does not exist, it is only an ideal. It will always be limited by the society in which we operate. But from there to hypocrisy there is a long, long distance.
I do not think you are in the case of the users I refer to in this article. I am talking about those who claim to be purer than anyone and yet do not use everything 100% free.
Excellent post! I totally agree !!
Regards!!
PS: Sent from Windows 7 😛
I subscribe to the idea you give, but I think there is more fabric to cut. I will write a post-reply on my blog when I have time.
I personally use linux for the simple reason that it is free, or most of it. I like to use legal software and not having to buy a Mac or all the software that Windows demands for a good execution, I made the decision to use linux. He always installed everything that serves me such as codecs and others, chrome is never missing and I do not see anything wrong with that. He did not attack anyone or defend anyone, I only use what I need and like.
Up to this moment of the 11 comments (including mine) 06 from some linux and 05 from windows, interesting opinion but it is from extremists wanting to qualify hypocrites or not in the wildebeest world, this world "came to light" precisely because of how the world of proprietary software behaved (and so far it continues to be but devastated), I would divide it in two as well but I would summarize it in the world of the easy-going who wants everything ready and served to eat, and the world of those who like Investigate, learn new things, win over problems so to define it, recently a friend who knew another told me that a company had a grid of buoys and wanted to automate the information that the buoys stored and he could not think of a better idea than to put one línúx distro in each buoy (converting each buoy into a computer) and store all the information in a mariadb with all its graphics…, this for example is ingenuity, research based on free software, now how did you do it? Let's see that one of the winbugceros that abound in this blog answers us! (:
I have no problems with windows, however I use linux because I like it better. That said, I think your comment makes no sense, what that young man did he could do with any OS. And well, the success of windows is precisely because they give you peeled, cooked and mashed potatoes, 99% of computer users are interested in a cucumber to know how it works or what license it has, 99% of users only It is important to be efficient in what they do, work, play, socialize, and unfortunately Linux thanks to its closed philosophy of open software, does not prosper in the first two. That's why I, for example, when I need to simulate electronic circuits, I must go to windows, if I want to play starcraft in the same way (no, I don't like wine or virtualize machines)
Very good article, it is clear you do not have to go to extremes, especially if, for example, the use of a proprietary draiver can improve the quality of your own multimedia consumption, or communication services,
or influence your job performance. But it would not be bad for companies to make their draiver code available to the community.
+100 Elav, I agree with you.
Being a staunch defender of freedom, I understand that freedom begins with everyone being free to use what best meets their needs, tastes, opinions, philosophy, etc. and ends at the right point where the exercise of it limits that of the rest of the people.
I think that beyond technical or philosophical issues, the position of those "purists" you mention is only the expression, in the field of ICTs, of the same extremism and fundamentalism that we see in politics or religion, as the colleague says. Drarko are just "Taliban."
Hahahahahahahaha this topic is going very good with respect to the answers that many have offered on the issue of VSCode in Linux, the truth says a lot about the double standard facade, which many in the GNU / Linux world have 🙂
»
-Those who use Free Software out of conviction (generally faithful followers of Stallman or his philosophy).
-Those who use Free Software and try to sell you the image that they are like the first ones I mentioned. »
I use free software out of conviction; use and recommend using free stuff. I do not subscribe to "I recommend free software because it is technically better" because in many cases it is not.
«To the" purest ": Recommend using GNU / Linux and 100% free Software if you want, but do not look at someone who uses something" that does not comply with the philosophy as a freak "»
Wait, you basically tell me that I can't judge you but you can? Can you accuse others of being like a religion simply because they have a conviction and call them hypocrites because of the degree to which they comply with it? And you can even tell me to what degree I have to use free software in order to have an opinion on it.
For the record, it seems like a gem to me if you don't think that freedom is the best free software, for me it is, and that's why I promote it.
What do I use skype? And yes, it is a shit but I have no alternative to talk to my clients. Does that make it hypocritical? Not at all, I still think that the advantage of free software is precisely the freedom it gives me as a user and not others (because all software has errors). I still think that all software should be free, I keep writing free software (or in the worst case private, not proprietary).
«I am not one of those people who tells you to use all OpenSource, I am one of those people who recommend you use a GNU / Linux distribution for all the advantages that this entails, with the Software that allows you to have the best experience and meets your needs . »
Good for you, or as Lebowski said "That's like, your opinion, man", but the one who is judging here is you.
Stallman in no time is going to put a gun to your head and tell you to use free software, the guy just tells you "such software is bad because it is proprietary", and that's fine. That is his role, that is his work (that is why the FSF exists), and the truth is he is not an extremist because he does not force you to use the farting laptop he has, he simply tells you that he uses that.
What @juan says is TRUE. If there is someone who is judged, and if there is a sample of judgment to the conduct of others, it is this same post (complete) including its qualifiers: "Hypocrite"
I do not say it annoying, I say it because it is like that @Elav the one who is judging is you @Elav
Totally agree
Totally agree, if you use 100% free software out of conviction, great! Good for you and follow your principles, but do not want everyone to think like you by force, it is incongruous with the freedom that is preached. All extremes are bad. As a developer and teacher, I recommend the use and creation of free software, demonstrating its strengths, but I do not blame or attack the use of closed software. I myself use closed and free software.
I still believe that the true freedom of Software is to use what you see fit. Like the Software Developer, they have the right to choose if they sell their product, if they give it free but closed source, or if they use the free license that XD wants.
It all depends on the situation. I do not criticize Mr. Stallman, he is a fundamental pillar in GNU / Linux, but that of using mobiles, Wifi, and different services, seems very extreme, for me. It works for him, but not for me. If I am in a company as a software developer, and they assign me a project, to develop software, for that company, how am I supposed to explain to the manager that I had to release the code because I am a 100% Free being and I comply with the 4 laws of free software? And that regardless of whether I work in a private company, I must release the code from "its" application because I must comply with a philosophy that governs my life? These are cases that escape us, and we just have to adjust to the situation.
I share the opinion of several here. Especially Elav, Yoyo and Eugenio. If I try to use Free Software, or Open Source, as much as I can, but I do it because from my point of view it is the best. It works like this for me, but if I have to activate a "non-free" repository or use a closed app (teamviewer, skype, google services, etc.) I use them, and that's it. My laptop is all Intel and with the free drivers I'm great, but on my desktop PC I have an Nvidia graphic and I need the proprietary driver, and I install it, without any regrets, it is a viable alternative that I have and only use it. I do not evangelize or brand others as "traitors" for using closed software. Even in my work, I have to use Windows every day, but apart from that I take my Laptop and I use GNU / Linux for everything I can, when I need Photoshop, Illustrator or something like that, I just go to Windows, and that's it. Even on my laptop I have a partition with Windows 10 that I only use for iTunes, Photoshop and the occasional Power Point presentation. So they will say that I am not a serious Linux user?
That is why I share 100% the idea of my friend Elav.
I am passionate about free software and I use güindos at home and at work for various reasons (very long to explain). I agree with you that in the world of free software there are people more popish than the Pope. I put aside various forums because we are not short of private label trolls, people who immediately criticize you if you installed a deb package instead of using the console. People who criticize you because you asked the same question twice (I'm not a computer scientist by any means). People who find that the distribution you have chosen is "not SL" because I don't know what the code is on the third shelf in the back room of the third floor is exclusive ...
So my applause to your article !!
It is what I have always said and the reason why I hate the Tuxtalibans, they do a disservice to free software and it hurts me when I read / listen to them, software is that and nothing else, just software, no religion, no god or anything like that, use whatever works for you and voila, if you like the software, pay for it or collaborate with a contribution or code to improve it, I can bet you that the Tuxtalibans are the ones who least get with the SL.
regards
Totally agree.
It's been 10 years since I switched to GNU / Linux.
And I use it out of conviction of what individual freedoms are.
But it is clear that neither at work nor at home I can do without Rendmon city programs or operating systems.
At work, everyone uses docx, xlsx, and pptx documents; In my house, there are programs of the AFIP (tax office in Argentina) that are yes or yes for Windows, or "web forms" of the State that do not work in anything other than Explorer.
In my opinion, freedom implies the option of making my own decisions and respecting the decision of 'others', whenever it is possible to use (and I recommend) free software, but, for various reasons, sometimes that is not practical and not there is no choice but to use the 'proprietary' options.
I think we owe the recognition of many freedoms to Mr. Stallman, but I disagree with several of his ideas. The 4 freedoms are an excellent idealistic guide, but it is not realistic in the current circumstances, neither in the work nor in the educational environment.
We all know how worrying it is to insert a flash memory in windows or download any file for that reason and for many advantages I like GNU Linux I will be using debian for two years without interruption after I manage to install a proprietary chess software in wine otherwise I would continue using windows and who can satan me for that.
The fact of choosing to use free or proprietary software is the free choice of each one, moreover, I do not use Linux because it is free, I think that deep down I never cared about that, I use it simply because in my case (and I emphasize that in my case) I find it much better than WindowsXP-7-8, in addition to the beautiful community that surrounds it and other details (although I recognize that much of it is due to the fact that it is free)
What I see wrong are the extremes, it is very good to promote free software (everything should be like that) but I see wrong that some criticize proprietary software simply for not being free, or criticize Linux users who like to use free software, or criticize those who want to create proprietary software for financial gain.
Anyway, I consider the most important is to defend freedom of choice.
HERESY, HERESY !!! SEND HIM TO THE FIREPLACE !!!
xD xD xD
Right now I write from a machine with XP installed, I am at my workplace and the company uses machines with Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 for its LAN network. I use Linux 100% (on my personal machines) for a few years, 5 or 6 at the most. I was, for some time, a hypocrite as you say, even more, a fanatical and annoying evangelizer and with that I managed to get many people to stay away from Linux (they did not want to be like the madman with the beard and glassy eyes).
Today, after going through Linuxeros Anonymous, I have learned to accept that Linux is wonderful just because I enjoy using it and doing what I like with it. The same happens to me with the PC assigned to me in the office, which I have customized as far as the OS itself allows it and in the process a world is enjoyed remembering the things I did and that experience allows me to do better.
An operating system is only as good as the person who sits behind the keyboard.
I am not a hypocrite. I am one of the third parties. I use Linux with 100% free software as far as possible, but, but my conscience does not bother me to have installed my proprietary Nvidia driver to be able to use my laptop 100%.
I use Google Chrome not Chromium, and I just installed Visual Studio Code and I think I'll stick with it instead of Sublime, just because it doesn't ask me to pay for a license every now and then.
I use Unity instead of the "other" 100%, its source code does not matter to me. I use Unity and Ubuntu and all the ones I've tried for convenience.
I will try to be as brief as possible, that if I am careless I write more than the xDDD article itself.
Free software is born, from my point of view, in a completely primitive and anti-scientific way: Based on the concept of freedom. I feel very sorry for all those who believe that such a thing exists, but I must inform you that this concept has very remote origins: When the human being did not understand that all phenomena have a cause (even if you do not know it).
A few centuries ago the philosophy of vitalism was raised, which said that living beings acted thanks to a kind of "vital force" (or soul, or spirit, or whatever you want). His opposite philosophy was mechanicism, which said that all phenomena are a physical consequence of others, and so on. Science has been based on this last philosophy, and that is why we currently have all the technological progress that we have.
Calling the software that publicly offers its source code "free software" is just another story derived from that abstract concept born of ignorance of the origin of human behavior. The free software philosophy is absurd. Let me explain why.
According to Stallman (which I appreciate very much, for the record), the software should offer all of its source code, allow sharing and other series of features that we all already know. Why? Because according to him, the opposite (proprietary software) "threatens our freedoms." I'm going to spare the comments that pop into my head when hearing that term, but let's translate that into more correct terminology.
If I use an operating system that does not offer its source code publicly, it is possible that such system is spying on me without my knowledge of it or that it has serious security holes; or it just doesn't do exactly what it claims to do. This is a problem for me as a user, since I do not have "control" over the software I use, but rather it controls me.
This problem is not a problem of freedom, Mr. Stallman or Mr. fan of freedom, it is a problem of INFORMATION. The problem is not my freedom, the problem is that I do not have the possibility to know how the program works. Beyond primitive anti-scientific words, closed source software is a problem for me for reasons that have to do with quality, security and the information that the program code can provide me.
Dear comrades of the GNU world, stop using the word "freedom" and switch to the words "information" and "knowledge." Or better: "efficiency." Once they do, they will be able to understand in a much more pragmatic way whether a program is open or closed, and whether it is worth using or not.
Let me go further. Is the software the highest priority in this matter? If you go to the supermarket and buy some food, in addition to the basic nutritional values, does the company offer you the EXACT recipe for what you are eating? Wow, it turns out not. You are eating "proprietary / closed food"! What do we do now, we stop eating food that does not teach us its elaboration process in a thorough way?
But let's go even further. If you walk through a city, do you know the street plans? Do you have the plans of your house? Those of your appliances? Those of your furniture? In short, do you have access to the design of the elaboration procedure of all the things you use in your life? The answer is no.
Making free software a philosophy seems very sad to me. And I'm not saying this in a derogatory way, but saying it as I feel it. Open source software has potential for all the things we already know, but to take it as "an ethical issue" is a mistake. In science there is no ethics, but efficiency. Is it efficient to use Windows? In my case, NO. In other people's yes. Is it efficient to use Google Chrome? In my case YES, in the case of others no. This is how things work. GNU / Linux has succeeded for reasons of efficiency, not ethics. Those who believe that it is ethical hallucinate in color.
Programming is supposed to be technical and scientific. Please don't bring primitive junk concepts like "ethics" into something as wonderful and fascinating as the world of programming. I understand that it is easy to fall into this error, because in the rest of our life we are still surrounded by anti-scientific ideas and concepts. But please, let's make an effort. If we already have enough with fragmentation, we only need to increase it to create free alternatives.
Debian is 100% open by default, but GNU does not include it in its official list for "giving the option to install proprietary software". Debian is a great system, but GNU instead spends A LOT of time and effort creating mediocre (yes, mediocre) alternatives like Trisquel. And I know this because I have tried several of them, and for quite some time.
Finally, I would like to say that I am proud as a programmer that we have been able to start a knowledge revolution by promoting the publication of all our "designs" and "plans", in short, of our source code. In the wake of what Stallman started, many other fields such as hardware, architecture, biology, and more are becoming "open source." Much courage, colleagues, we still have a lot to do!
The information must be completely free and accessible by everyone in the world. Let's keep working for it. A greeting! 😉
Being a fan of anything is never the right path.
You have to be faithful to your ideals and faithful to the freedom that others have to have ideals that are different from yours. That said, you have to respect even the freedom of people to be hypocrites, maybe they do it without being aware.
Greetings, comrades.
Ethics something "primitive"? now you have killed me uncle. You are falling into permormative self-contradiction, you are giving "science" and technology quasi-religious attributes. What if your precious information is used to create a deadly virus? there is no ethical reflection on things like that?
Really, every day you surprise me more ...
If the knife is to cut bread or to stab someone, ethical reflection does not fall on the process of making the knife.
The concept of ethics is nothing more than the result of evolution. Civilizations that did not give priority in some way to the well-being of the entire population would have greater difficulties to survive.
And I'm sorry to say that you have not understood my comment. I have contrasted the concept "freedom" with the concept "information" or "knowledge"; in the case of "ethics" I have contrasted it with "efficiency." If you have interpreted that I speak of substituting ethics for information, it is already up to you xD.
By using efficiency instead of ethics, I mean that a living organism is efficiency when it is in optimal health conditions, when it has access to clean water, healthy food, medical care, etc. A "deadly virus" is not efficient, quite the contrary, it is very inefficient in the context of human efficiency.
I understand that society today sees science as a mere tool. I speak of the opposite, science also has values that it would not be bad to put into practice;). A greeting.
PS: "You are giving science and technology quasi-religious attributes." Que? But if ethics is the most religious and philosophical thing there is xDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD.
ERROR:
1 - When you talk about information you only think about the possibility of "seeing" the source code.
Stallman talks about the freedom to modify it (the same freedom you have when you buy any product) and to share it. The "rare" invention, the proprietary one. Why can someone forbid you to use as you please something that you already purchased and for what you already paid for?
2 - You mix the concept of "ethics" with certain "religious" ideas that have nothing to do with it (as many confuse free software).
An example to understand what Stallman means by "ethics":
Would you consume an edible / drinkable product if it is not known what it is made of, it does not say on the label, it is not published anywhere and it is not known what it can cause in your body?
What if they also force you to take it in a certain way?
What if the manufacturers also say "expressly" that by drinking it they can do with your body and your organs whatever they want?
Would you give free publicity to these types of products in a blog designed to talk about "open" products (those that say what they have on the label, although nobody reads, and that you can take it as you please)?
Would you call "fanatics", "Taliban", "hypocrites" or "religious" those who prefer to know what they are drinking and want to decide how, even if your product is super delicious / addictive?
Would you hope that those who know how to "read" labels don't treat you as "ignorant"?
And about religion NOTHING, NOTHING ...
I hope I have shed a little light on so much darkness.
And for your information, thank God, I'm Atheist.
[When you talk about information you only think about the possibility of "seeing" the source code. Stallman talks about the freedom to modify it (the same freedom you have when you buy any product) and to share it.]
You have affirmed that. For me, behavior is the result of the information available to the individual (in addition to other factors). What you learn determines to a large extent what you do. Simply that. Although the software is closed, people also share it and in some cases also modify or extend it. The clear differentiating point between one software and another is whether its source code is accessible or not, to know what it does exactly. It's really cool to put in a license "can be shared" or "can not share", but people will do what they want anyway. Why is there the so-called piracy if not? Well that.
[You mix the concept of "ethics" with certain "religious" ideas that have nothing to do with it (as many confuse free software).]
What religious ideas? Specify. I'll tell you: Efficiency, utility, pragmatism. Those words ARE concrete, they do have a more or less understandable meaning. Ethics initiates a debate as absurd as the words "justice," "freedom," "equality," and other unscientific words.
[your example]
No, I have not called anyone "fanatics", "Taliban", "hypocrites" or "religious". Just "fan of freedom" in a merely humorous sense. I want to have access to how EVERYTHING is done. Not only the software, but also the rest of the material elements that make up the world. Access to information. But that access to information can be approached in a pragmatic or fundamentalist way.
I honestly find no use in GNU's approach to open source. I can not find it. And no wonder the term "open source" has become more popular than "free software." Do you know what those two terms represent respectively? Pragmatism and fundamentalism. That's. It hurts, but it's like that.
I would love for the city I live in to be 'open', for its plans to be available to everyone and for anyone to be able to modify it to improve it. But it's not like that. So am I moving to a city that is? Because of course, if I stay here, I have to follow the rules that the city imposes on me, the streets that the city imposes on me, etc. Well no, I'm staying, because there is no "open" city that works as well as this one.
I understand that many of you find it difficult to understand this, but it is not a question of freedom, it is a question of efficiency, of pragmatism. And you can talk all you want, spread the GNU speech all you want, but things are as they are. Do you want a world of 100% free software? Less fragmentation, less speeches, and more work on the more evolved distros out there. I've been breaking my ass for a long time on a project that is going to revolutionize everything (of which I'm sorry I can't mention anything for now). And it will be open. And accessible. And public. Instead of saying "don't use Google," I do something better than Google. Well that.
A greeting.
Lajto:
Sorry, but obviously you have nothing clear about what the SL is about, but you do know that you have to criticize it and label it "religious."
1- Is it the same to have permission from the author of soft to modify and share it as to do it illegally, as a "pirate"?
The SL criticizes the proprietary Licenses, not piracy (on the contrary, it does not consider the one who shares a 'pirate'), that is, the criticism is THE AUTHOR OF PRIVATIVE SOFT, NOT THE USER, as everyone is misinterpreting.
2 - "justice", "freedom", "equality" are religious terms?
"Justice": Using something without acknowledging its author is unfair, regardless of religion.
"Freedom": a bird locked in its cage lacks freedom: pure science.
"Equality": 1 == 1. True. Pure math
3- Before giving an opinion on "open source" vs "free software", you have to know the difference "scientifically" between one and the other:
"Open source": code available. It matches your idea of "the information available to the individual."
"Free software": four freedoms: view, use, modify and share. No one is going to accuse you of being a pirate for doing whatever you want with free software, the license allows it. With open source you can do what the author allows you. Free Software cannot be closed, the license does not allow it, the open one maybe. Pure science, no religion.
Example: The Mac kernel is based on an OpenSource software. Apple took advantage of it, closed it, and sold it.
Example: The Linux kernel is free, don't even think about closing it and selling it, you will eat a safe judgment.
Pure science!
regards
What you defend is nothing more than scientism, a totally discarded philosophical doctrine that is more typical of a nineteenth century mentality. Especially after the Second World War it was shown that science was not going to be the salvation of the human being. Augusto Comte has already died. I recommend the work "Dialectics of the Enlightenment" by Horkheimer and Adorno. That vision of technology is a kind of totally pernicious social neo-Darwinism. In the name of efficiency and pragmatism, the greatest crimes have been committed. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, they all made decisions in the name of efficiency and pragmatism. Ethical concepts are absolutely necessary, today more than ever. The XNUMXst century is either ethical, or it simply won't be.
PS I recommend that you read a little Philosophy. Especially the authors who survived the Nazi Holocaust, that efficient and pragmatic administration of death that was Auswitz.
The truth is, I am completely surprised. Your ability to link social efficiency with fascism and totalitarian communism is extraordinary. Speechless.
As this is a GNU / Linux blog, I will just stop the discussion. I don't want to "party."
I have only tried to argue that ethics is something "primitive." But as you say, the discussion ends here.
All the best
Ethics do not exist, you proclaim. But ever since you started comparing food with software I realized that you don't have a scientific mind.
Food is a physical entity and software is abstract.
Greetings.
You're right, comparing food with software doesn't make me a scientist. And this is how everything I have said is invalidated. Ags, if only I had compared software to hardware or something! xD
I think your interpretation is too utilitarian. People do not behave only in a rational way and therefore the emotional factor (among which the ethics or moral factor unfolds) if it has an important weight in the development of things. The scientist, no matter how much he wishes, is not an amoral subject. Although I am too young to know for sure I dare to say this: if GNU / Linux is efficient now it is only because it was inefficient for decades. If the free software pioneers had been "efficient" I would say that GNU / Linux would have died in oblivion.
Let's go by parts.
For me the reason does not exist. I do not believe that human beings can "reason." What it can do is react based on external and internal stimuli, what happens is that at first glance it seems that it does it by itself, and it is not. It is the experiences that determine what we think and do. The biological factor is there, but it is not the most important.
But I'm not going the other way. I answer.
"Your interpretation is too utilitarian"
Oh my god. Many people tell me "you don't have feelings", but even if I don't want to have them, I'm still going to have them xDDDD. I get excited about GNU / Linux (and many other things). Or are scientists not excited when they use a microscope and discover something new? What about mathematicians solving problems?
Of course, emotion has an important weight "in the development of things." When have I denied that? I have simply suggested that ethics must be replaced by social efficiency, because it is a more concrete concept. Basically, seeking justice is not the same as seeking efficiency.
The collective of programmers should be guided by efficiency, not by ethics. Clear social efficiency, a better world, where you live better, etc. I'm just raising that. I think they are the clear approaches of free software and open source. Nor do I say anything extraordinarily new: /.
Greetings.
I have only tried to argue that ethics is something "primitive." But as you say, the discussion ends here.
All the best
Primitive?
How can a product of a philosophy, which is transformed into an ideology, and ends up within a legal framework, be something primitive?
If reasoning, consciousness and language, for a social interaction, are what distinguish us as the most evolved species.
Primitive are almost instinctive thoughts ... "This is easier for me, this is what I'll use, F ** k Ethic!"
I would say that it is a visionary ideology ahead of its time, fortunately we are already getting closer and faster to the time when most understand it, proof of this is that more and more countries are adopting it as state policy.
Unscientific?
Ah of course, I forget that politics, sociology, economics, are not science (Sarcasm)
For the rest, it should be made clear that there is no single universal meaning of freedom, which we can apply to all facets of human behavior.
Legal or political freedom
Positive freedom
Negative freedom
Free software
...
Multiple terms with specific and different meanings, confusing them is the first step to writing nonsense.
So, if for you, the problem of losing your privacy when using proprietary software is not a matter of FREEDOM, but of INFORMATION, I recommend you read the UDHR, because private information is a freedom guaranteed by law.
I do not know in your country, but where I live, if I take the letters from my neighbors' mailbox and read them, I am committing a federal crime, for accessing their INFORMATION without permission. The same applies for electronic matters.
I have written a very long answer. Before publishing it, I have reflected and decided not to. It is very clear in the rules of this blog not to talk about politics or to debate outside the framework of GNU / Linux.
What's more, I think I'm going to refrain from commenting further on this blog. I prefer to share the guides that I develop in my daily chores, period. Debate and discussion are enriching, but I understand that this is not the appropriate place to do it.
Be happy with your opinions.
Do not be offended, but your comment is very bad. It seems that you do not know that free software is not only about knowing how the software works, but also about having the FREEDOM to share it, change it and share it again.
The term free software is well used, what happens is that in your desire to appear intelligent saying that it is primitive and that I know, with very weak foundations, let me tell you, you deviated from real knowledge.
And the example of the recipes is also anything, any food package brings with it the ingredients they used so that you know exactly what you are eating and are obliged to do so.
That is why I almost agree with you, but the truth is that in these times when Google is tracking us to offer us better advertising banners (something that is still pending), Facebook continues to hypnotize us with its dependence on our social circles, and Furthermore, even the intelligence agency of the country in which we live (it does not matter if it is the NSA in the US or the DINI in Peru) spies on us just by looking at our payment history for electricity, water and other necessities.
Unfortunately, there is not a strong interest in free software since not 100% profitable, so unfortunately you will see abandoned projects (gnash), badly programmed (SystemD), obsolete (FFMPEG), among others, but those that at least have a good handful of users and a good source of donations, will survive (and if gives for more, to improve certain things).
The problem is that -like other philosophies- free software is full of paradigms that hardly have to be accepted by everyone, and currently it seems that we are living a Holy war to the ISIS, so we will have to leave ourselves with prejudiced paradigms and admit that it is not always possible to execute certain things that are "imposed" (something that Stallman does not do, only exhorts).
I quote you Lajto (you remind me of Lazlo, the Yugoslav kid from the back cover of clarin):
'His opposite philosophy was mechanism, which said that all phenomena are a physical consequence of others, and so on. Science has been based on this last philosophy, and that is why we currently have all the technological progress that we have. "
And for that reason we are the humans and society that we are !! Vital beings forced to the mechanism ... do you think?
I don't feel like talking about software, what's more ... I think we don't really care about software.
Well, first of all, I don't consider myself a free software puritan. I am a standard user, without any professional background in the area of computer science.
Secondly, I do know the hypocrites who defend "freedom" of choice and are the first to look for proprietary drivers or do their best to get X application to run in Wine.
But I want to comment something, and this is very personal: the freedom in the use of Linux is given by everyone. That's what the family of distributions and customizations is for. I could not qualify as a hypocrite anyone who does not use 100% open source their computer, since everyone uses the distribution, browser and drivers of their preference or need. Being a standard user, I require the basics, and I prefer that a live distro like Mint do the installations I need for me.
Third place: I do not agree with "evangelization" either. We can expose the advantages (And, of course, the disadvantages too), of using Linux and Free Software, but it cannot be done in all geographical contexts. In my country, Venezuela, there is a very bad reputation for Linux in general, because an unpolished distribution (I will not qualify it as bad, they just didn't polish it), Canaima, was the first window to the world of Linux and Free Software for many, and, as it was not an adequate transition nor did they teach how to use the distro correctly, parents or teenagers who owned the Canaima project laptops were the first to ask about how to format and install Windows on a laptop with Canaima pre-installed. installed. At the same time, since they did not invest enough in maximizing the performance of the distribution (on my laptop it was a disaster at the graphic level), then Linux has a bad image, and therefore, to get more users in my software country free is uphill.
Conclusion: I would rather speak of contradictory people than hypocrites, freedom in Free Software is an individual measurement.
I started using Linux because of the freedoms that free software grants and I try to use this software whenever I can, but I have come to realize that not everything is rosy. At first I sought to exclusively use Free Software as defined by the FSF, but came to the conclusion that it is impossible to perform the tasks that make money and support my family, so I have chosen to use Free Software when it is possible to do so. I think it is clear that one must use the best tools for the tasks that one must accomplish. Much to my regret I cannot do without using proprietary software but I always look for an alternative if it gives me the result I want I prefer the free alternative for 2 reasons.
It makes me feel good to use software that others have made and that they share for the benefit of the people, I always look for a way to thank them by supporting those people, be it by donating money or spreading their work, providing support, code or simply saying "thank you" .
I ensure that the software I use will always be available when I need it and the information I generate will always be accessible to me without being limited by a manufacturer or company. This is very valuable to me.
At this moment if a distro complicates my life, even if it is totally free or not, I discard it because I cannot waste time in fixing something that "is already fixed" by someone else in other distros that maybe use proprietary software at some level but they work the first time. Functionality is important to me and if my job is stressful, I don't think it is "sane people" that complicates life by limiting the use of a tool for purely philosophical reasons.
I believe that everyone can use what they create best for themselves, and respecting that will help to be a more collaborative and productive community. But what I do think is important is to spread the use of Linux whether it is in pure FS distros or not.
Greetings to all from Mexico.
Luis Armando Medina
I agree for Yoyo. I really like free software and Open Source. But I'm not a fan. I migrated to GNU Linux by 98%. I use Linux Mint Cinnamon which has numerous proprietary software especially codecs etc. I tried Kingsoft Office for compatibility with DOC, DOCX etc. But I ended up installing Ms Office 2010 via PlayOnLinux… although I use LibreOffice as much as I can. Everyone has the right to do what is sung to him. As we say here. It's not easy to use 100% free software Whoever you want me to. This would have to use the same as RMS. … But extremisms are bad. I listen to RMS, I value what he does but I don't follow him 100% and this doesn't seem bad to me ... I repeat, extremisms are bad. It is more in my notebook I have Windows 7 and I left it for work reasons, etc. and there I use free software, open source but also freeware., etc ... of everything
I recommend this two interesting articles from this blog
- 5 types of very annoying linux users 5 types of very annoying linux users. Linux paradise. December 22, 2011 http://paraisolinux.com/5-tipos-de-usuarios-de-linux-muy-molestos/
- I don't know which distro to install. Silly fights for the best distro. Linux paradise. May 6, 2013
http://paraisolinux.com/cual-distro-instalar-mejor-distribucion-linux/
Clarification Positive notebook BGH Corportate with Linux Mint 17.1 Cinnamon 64bit with Windows 7 Professional pre-installed.
Moreover, I have a home page on Free Software (which is definitely not 100% free software) in which it includes free applications for Windows (free software, open source and freeware) in a section.
http://www.start.me/p/ZMEMl4/software-libre
All very true what you say, but there are already many philosophical and vindictive posts that do not contribute anything and are not very constructive.
Without acrimony, I think that readers prefer technical or novel entries to battles of fifteen-year-olds.
All the best
I could not comment with my user, no matter how much I log in, when I enter the post it returns and I get the control panel button.
Anyway, very much in accordance with the post my time through GNU / Linux very similar to yours elav. And well, I also think that sometimes I have been a bit radical although without wanting to. But one is learning that freedom also consists of letting others be free to use what best suits their needs or what they like best.
ps: What do you mean by configuring the browser's UserAgent. What is to be done?
If it appeared with my username, even though it did not appear as logged XD
The subject in question is interesting, although the term Hypocrite seems exaggerated, since then I should feel bad and say that I do not deserve to use gnu / linux, Like many here I use this system because I like it and the freedom it gives you, but Unfortunately, whether or not those of the% 100 free philosophy like it or not, many of us by necessity cannot apply it, it would be the ideal but it cannot be in many cases and I repeat out of necessity, and when I started using Linux I made the same mistake as many « Evangelize »but, later I learned that freedom is in letting each one decide what to use or what is best and most useful for one.
For me it is simple, it is free, use GNU / Linux and enjoy it, how you use it or what you use in it, it is up to everyone not all of us can feel comfortable with others.
The comment I posted before, I didn't want to post as a response to the user. I am always wrong, I wanted to publish it as a personal opinion to the article, I think I just discovered how to respond to the article without having to respond to other comments.
Greetings again people.
A lot of victimhood is what I see around here ... to see that you are not Miguel de Icaza, nobody cares what you use, and I do not see hordes of Stallmanian linuxers pressuring GNU / Linux users to use non-proprietary drivers or pure distros , nor issuing purity certificates with respect to free software.
I think that more than Taliban there are attention whores
Come repeat with me (using Gollum's voice if possible):
«Nobody cares about me
nobody loves Me
people don't care what I wear »
: )
A fan of MonoDevelop !! (hehe, evil laugh), to the stake !!
I find this fight similar to the one that vegans have with the rest of the world, here a very good explanation.
http://41.media.tumblr.com/975163f996d733c403ec3148f7cbfc01/tumblr_ng5styJYbV1sdc89ro1_500.jpg
The freedom to use free software, and the freedom to use private, closed software. That is precisely being free: having free will, freedom of choice. Although the consequences of their choices are unavoidable, (stay free or lock yourself in) they are free to choose them.
Stallman is crazy ... with his beard, long hair (he reminds me that maybe he doesn't use scissors because they can track him, he's a real hippie), don't be ... I think that philosophy is sometimes very old-fashioned.
I use Windows, Mac and Linux… I have iPad, Android Phone…. I develop business applications in Visual Studio and I use free software for Web development, I use Spotify for music, I watch Netflix (Microsoft silverlight) and I have no problem in all of it ... it doesn't take anything away from me for using that, my final point is that Stallman very sometimes exceeds things.
And I am a hypocrite for promoting free software and using all this in my life…. Greetings yoyo!
Live and let live!!
That's what this is about, freedom!
I use Ubuntu at work and gentoo on my personal lap for convenience and I also use closed source applications.
The important thing about this is knowing that you have that, the freedom to use the software that suits your needs, it seems to me an excellent article.
Richard Stallman is necessary to remind us of the essence of free software, but we must not be extremists and make a religion of this.
It's about freedom 😀
Hello, I read the posts on this website, but I liked this very much because there are many things you speak about. I am on windos because of the simple echo of the game if I would not use linux 100%, because because it is free for free, I recommend free programs because eg everything uses nero as 2 gb to record 2 mp3s every year for that use imgbur for giving an ej it weighs 60mb and grabs the same as nero. When I switched to linux, I happened because it is free and I learned a lot about it and another thing that I would like to be like more video game triple A, that the installations of many programs and something like that is more graphic and I am thinking of a project in qt5 to make a multiplatform software installer. Between another thing that I like about Linux and another that I would like them to be. About the closed code that I can say, never the probe driver open appears on the graphic plate, always install the pribative since well the company in theory knows better its arware that it sells than anyone else should make a good driver. to finish for me the philosophy of using linux nova to use everything for free is or not private, if not if to spend 300 dollars on a license for something that uses 25% or 50% of the program do the same with the other program open surce who does the same and for free and donates at most 5 or 10 dollars and they are graded. And I put a simple example how much they used office 2013 or whatever version is to write 2 big words to print, being able to do it in a notepad or wordpad until the same maicrofost I thought about that for buying their system and they leave you to the man program to do what Basic of everything but not the people ask ofice so that to use 10 or 25% of the tool.
Without my intention to offend, did you really not have a spell checker on hand? ... O_O I say this because my eyes really bleed after trying to read your comment ...
ehh nope the truth is not but your comment does not offend me, they always tell me XD and not speak at school when iva desian that it was to read Aramaic as I write xD
(Without my intention to offend xD) One thing is Aramaic, another thing is scribbles of a three year old, this is unreadable xD. (Just a tip: if you want do not use accents, if you want do not use "h" in "speak", or use "s" in "said", but please ... put semicolons: u). XDD
It is important to maintain good spelling, aesthetics, and punctuation; they are basic elements, which emphasize the content and not its form. I have many of these errors, but the important thing is to question them and correct them for the next time.
I would actually divide GNU / linux users into three groups:
1- Those who use Free Software out of conviction (generally faithful followers of Stallman or his philosophy).
2- Those who use Free Software and try to sell you the image that they are like the first ones I mentioned.
3- Those who spend their time writing articles to belittle / insult / attack / divide / label / confuse the users of the GNU / Linux community, just because they think differently and only to justify having published an article showing the new "benefits" of Microsoft and their new closed software for "Linux" (as they prefer to call GNU / Linux).
I congratulate those who take advantage of the altruistic work of a few without caring how to value the contribution to the community they make, believing that "advertising" the software is a good in itself.
The only objective pursued (and pursued) by free software developers (such as the "Taliban" Stallaman, creator of GNU and the term Free Software !!) is minimal recognition, spreading the "valuable" idea of free software and especially the dangers of the privative.
But of course, as it is still true that it is impossible to use 100% free software (for whatever reason, I work in my case) and now, just for the fact of defending the SL, to try to "push" so that one day we reach that 100%, it's okay to be called a "hypocrite" (in addition to the classic "religious extremist Taliban" we are used to).
And then they complain because they do not like to receive the qualification of "ignorant" to those of group 3. Until when? Let's talk about GNU / Linux and Free Software and let's stop generating absurd controversies and divisions please !!
Greetings.
In that case you missed a 4th: The one who criticizes the one in point 3 as a good troll.
Let it be clear to you that I do not consider myself to be from any of the groups you mention, because neither am I ignorant, nor do I spend my time belittling / insulting / attacking / dividing / labeling / confusing any user as you say, which you are doing with your "mentally gifted" comment (upss, I tagged you). To that I add that in this blog I publish and promote what I see fit and I don't have to justify anything.
At first, I did not understand the reason why you felt alluded to, but I can see that you are one of those who cannot accept that someone thinks differently. A shame You can look the other way if you want, so you don't have to spend your precious time reading articles like this one.
Let's see:
Passing by
'your' mentally gifted 'comment'
It seems to me that
«You are one of those who cannot accept that someone thinks differently»
Talk about yourself, not about me.
No one knows how to answer Why is it perfect to criticize so badly ('extremist', 'Taliban', 'religiosio') those who defend Free Software and are “mentally gifted” to defend themselves? Why?
Are the comments not to give an opinion on the published articles?
I simply responded to your attack. First you said:
Obviously there you do not refer to me directly, but in view of the fact that you put the comment in this article, and also added:
Well, I just took it as a direct attack and responded. If for you I am ignorant, or those in group 3 in general are ignorant, then you must have a super gifted mind and you know everything .. That's why I said it. But nothing, maybe I misinterpreted.
Dear Elav.
We are all ignorant. I consider myself very ignorant in many aspects of life.
I do not consider being "ignorant" an insult, on the contrary, if there is something I do not know, it is something that I have to learn in the future (if I am interested).
Now the adjective "hypocrite" is an insult.
Let's think a bit:
What's worse?
Desar to use 100% free software, "fight" for that, (but for multiple reasons not being able to achieve it) and also receive the qualification of 'taliban', 'extremist', 'murderer', 'isis', 'hypocrite' (among others)?
Or talk about a certain subject lightly, obviously without knowing it in depth (and also insult someone on the way), and receive the label of "ignorant"?
I ask for calm and less unnecessary controversy please, more union and less absurd wars.
Good.
I have little on Linux (a few months), I'm on Linux because my computer gives a lot of problems with Windows, that's why I have Linux (it also gives me problems but they are a little less)
As it is obvious I use proprietary software because it is what I am used to using, it works very well for me, it is the one I want to use and for some functions of my work, free software does not give me the ease and / or functionality that I need, as an example I have office 2010 installed on my Linux Mint
This scolding article reminds me of many others such as social (such as those who proclaim social justice and throw pests at the capitalist system but have an iPhone 6 plus and change their car every year), religious (Islam is an excellent example)
In the end it's a matter of judgment
Conceptually the post is silly: The ethical deficit of hardware manufacturers (which is just an echo of the ethical deficit of capitalism as an economic and political-social scheme) and the immediacy-learning relationship on the part of users of digital devices are the only elements (circumstantial and relative) by which the existence of proprietary software components on free GNU + Linux systems is justified (ad hoc). Any machine that does not need closed drivers (or kernel blobs) and any user that does not give in to the comfort of a proprietary service instead of a free alternative is all that is needed to avoid having to give up much deeper and more serious philosophical questions than a mere «oh, well, but there are many who use something exclusive so don't tell me anything, hypocrites!» ...
It is not hypocrisy, it is mere coherence, and in almost all cases even easy to practice.
A world without proprietary software is not only perfectly possible: it already exists in many cases. That is to say: To a certain extent it is already a fact, not a wish or a hypothesis.
The bet is to spread Free Software and the philosophy of Free Culture and Information: More solidarity, more freedom, more possibilities.
What sense does it make to end up defending the use of proprietary software? Is it that the companies / companies that make money with it are going to pay you some money to advertise them?
It seems to me that at least it is appropriate to pause for a moment to question principles, logic and objectives.
regards
Who has defended proprietary software here? What I am defending is the freedom to choose whether or not to use proprietary software whenever you want.
What I am defending is the freedom to choose whether or not to use Private Software whenever you want.
What is being alienated by who exactly? By people who think differently from you?
If it comes to asking for "coherence", I hope you are in the process of moving to North Korea or another similar country; I say this because that way you avoid the «ethical deficit of capitalism as an economic and political-social scheme»… Come on, it is very easy to pontificate on purity but very difficult to adjust to it.
I think that you and some others do not quite realize what this article is about, or at least how I see it: that everyone is free to use what they want, without having to be judged for it. I can't quite understand what is wrong with everyone choosing what they see best, whether they are informed or not, that is also their choice, and it includes holding ourselves responsible and assuming the consequences.
In principle, I reject all those who spend their time preaching subjecting the freedom of individuals to a supposed common interest, which until today the only thing that has generated is that a few profiteers live at the expense of a well-screwed majority.
100% agree on everything, excellent Elav reflection. Personally I believe that free software is the future, of course, very distant. It takes a shift in world consciousness that I believe will happen in a long, long time, or else humanity will not be able to continue living on planet earth. 10 years ago you had to know how to install a minimally functional GNU / Linux distro, today even an accountant (to give an example) with a little patience and desire can install more than one distro. In 10 years the advance will be greater. We are going well 🙂
I could not agree more with everything mentioned here, I think exactly like you, we should not take this as a religion. We must respect each other above all else, it is very important. a greeting
Honestly, you lacked a third group of users, those of us who use free software because it is comfortable, stable, or it is "the solution" and not because of philosophy ...
Personally I always use moodle, and I don't get it outside of linux ... and it doesn't give me to write gnu-linux either, because that's for the Taliban
There are many groups, I only mentioned the two groups that this article is aimed at. 😉
That happens when there is no Linux news
How right! U_U
Hahaha it's a joke
if in the end we all like to comment XD
I see two fundamental problems in the article.
Confuse the freedom of the user to use what he pleases (an intrinsic freedom due to the condition of being human) with the freedom of software (always desirable).
Decide that to defend the philosophy of free software it is required to use Trisquel, Parabola or another 100% free distribution. Many users may want to be totally consistent with their actions but different factors (their hardware, their needs) do not allow it. Is that reason enough to stop expressing your desire, your thought? I do not think so.
Of course, I start from the basis of respectful treatment. A troll is a troll use 100% free or 100% proprietary software.
I don't use 100% free distributions but I wouldn't mind using them; what's more, it seems desirable to me. I follow the GNU philosophy as far as possible, share it, defend it and spread it. Similarly, I speak and promote free networks (Jabber / XMPP, Pump.io, GNU Social). Does being on Twitter take away my legitimacy to recommend these networks? I do not think so. It's the same as the typical fallacious argument of "I'll do that in ten minutes" or, from the other side, "Let's see if you can do it better."
Finally, I just saw live how you have deleted two comments where there was no insult, just a brief opinion expressed with sarcasm. It seems to me pure and simple censorship.
Ok .. but it's like saying: Do what I say and not what I do. If for any reason you have to use Proprietary Software or Hardware (for whatever reason), then don't come to criticize those who do. That is the message of the article.
Are you a creacker or something? Did you breach our administration panel? I ask because I don't understand how else you could see how we deleted two live comments... and another little thing, in DesdeLinux It started with the philosophy that there could be no censorship in the comments, but in the long run time showed us that we have/can/should take the freedom to moderate the comments.
The people I know who use 100% free distributions are respectable and respectful people. They can be more or less abrupt and recommend a free program to another proprietary one, even prodding you if you tell them that you use Windows, but they will never deny you your right and your human freedom to use whatever you want. But again, we start from respect, a respect that, I'm not going to deny you, is lacking many times, as in your post about Visual Studio Code where you simply analyze software (and that, I suppose, triggered this new article).
Regarding the message, the truth is that I did not understand it that way. From the way it is written it seems that you want to impose your criteria, so to speak (I know that is not your intention). "If they really use everything 100% open, congratulations, but from here I tell you: it will not always be like this." And why is that? I know people who have been using 100% free distributions for years, and they live very happily; I don't see why you have to change this. It seems that since you are somewhat disenchanted, as you use proprietary software out of necessity, others cannot or will not do the same. This is what I mean, for example.
By the way, the codecs to play MP3 are free software, a different matter is that the format is patented. The same are the programs that allow you to open .doc. And these formats can always be converted to a free equivalent.
Regarding the comments, no, I am not a cracker nor do I intend to be. It was simply with an F5. I was reading the comments, F5, two disappeared. Sarcastic and perhaps politically incorrect comments, but not insulting, I think.
a greeting
In other words, those people you know are like RMS, and they don't use anything that goes against the ideology and philosophy of Free Software, is that it? If so, very good for them. It is clear that it cannot be generalized, in fact, I think it was not clear in the first group that I mentioned, that by following RMS they do not necessarily disrespect you or tell you something for not thinking like them or using Proprietary Software.
If you are so kind as to point out in my VSCode post where I disrespected someone, I will thank you. Moreover, if I realize that you are right, I change the way I wrote the post.
I do not want or intend to impose my criteria on anyone, I just said what I think. That maybe it wasn't the best way? It depends on who looks at it, but I am like that, impulsive on many occasions and sometimes it shows when I write.
Well, for the same reason that I have commented in the article in one way and another .. As much as we want to use Free Software or OpenSource, the conditions will not always allow it, while the hardware or the Software itself often come from companies like Apple , Google, Microsoft, and a long etc ... Do those people you know use cell phones? Do you use FirefoxOS or any other mobile OS that is Free Software or OpenSource?
I do not use, nor do I need to use Private Software out of necessity. In fact, the most exclusive (I think) that I have installed on my PC is Google Chrome, Sublime Text and VSCode, and none of the three I use them daily.
That's what I was talking about, the format and of course they can be converted, but do all those who defend Free Software tooth and nail do it? Sure, that question would be very difficult to answer, but I would not bet my skin ...
I didn't mean it, of course. In fact, this blog is managed by several people and it is possible that some comment has been removed from public view, but if that happened it was not me, and if it happened, it was for something.
Hello everyone,
I think that precisely the error of that article is to deny the affirmation of "do what I say and not what I do." I explain. The thesis of this article is that since those who promote in a "military" way (forgive me the comparison) the exclusive use of free software, many times they do not comply with it, then their arguments are no longer valid and everyone should use whatever they want . But this "argument" is a bit fallacious since the fact that the person arguing does not follow it does not invalidate the argument. If it is more ethical to use SL it will be even if whoever says it does not use it, right? In any case, the debate should focus on whether it is more ethical or not to use SL. Another thing is that you tell me that it is more legal for someone who complies with what he promotes to be less demanding with the rest than a person who does not comply with it. We will agree on that.
The other misconception that emerges from this article and is often used in this discussion is that we are free to use whatever we want and no one else cares about that. This is a mistake in the sense that yes, we are free to use what we want, but our uses and decisions DO affect others. I believe that free software allows the development of society on various fronts: it allows access to technology for people with fewer resources, it allows public institutions to become independent from private companies with economic interests, it allows study and learning from from source code and enables technology enhancements to be widely distributed and applied much faster. So I really think SL is better ethically than proprietary software. And I think that its use is the best way for people to promote their growth. I give an example of how use conditions development (the example is not exactly from SL): if Valve had not opted for the use of Linux or developed its Steam Machines, I think there would be fewer compatible games, right? That is why I do believe that deciding whether or not to use free software has an effect on others and on their development. If people thought the same about (for example) recycling, in the end it would not be recycled ...
That said, I am aware that everyone's situation is different. People use what they can at work (now I write from my work computer), you may need free software to connect to WIFI, etc. So I am in favor of not being extremist in our judgments, without this removing the fact that forcing you to use free software contributes more to its development and that we should try to use it to the best of our ability.
A hug to all! It's a great blog (my header blog).
Good morning everyone. Congratulations for this large and professional community from my very personal point of view so that any Windows user can use Linux without regret (in most cases it is because of their profession that requires them to use Windows) several points need to be solved.
* First there is a huge advance in the drivers and I want to imagine the linux kernel in a few years but at the moment there is certain hardware that linux does not support or does not work correctly it is true that most of them do but an example that does not let me get rid of windows is A driver for the canon imagerunner 5000 takes several minutes to get the order or we have NVIDIA (by the way FUK YOU NVIDIA) but it is only a matter of waiting.
* Second, closed software is very important, which must be used by companies as a requirement or for gamers who are very fans of certain titles, it is not possible to play from recognized companies that in Linux would run like a charm. (True, there are alternatives but the ideal is that companies support linux and run natively but it is what it is, we will continue to be slaves of windows and their monkeys of different colors (continue savoring my linux and seeing how it progresses month after month while I see how windows change colors and themes) .
Remember that it is my personal opinion and I agree that everyone can use what they want and that is convenient for Linux users because that way we are not spied on so massively.
100% agree. I think the same, and I have earned the hatred of many pro-free people, for the simple fact of having a double boot with Windows, or for working as a .NET teacher.
Personally I use Linux, because I like the scope I have on the system, 100% customizable settings, much more versatility, software that adapts better than its counterpart in Windows at least for me, and for its performance.
Now, at work, I use Linux because it feeds me, if one day I change jobs, and in the company an MS network is administered, and it is developed in .NET, welcome, I will use MS technologies at work, I will not jump with the anti-proprietary software crusade (a childish term for me, I prefer to say non-free software, it does not deprive you of anything since you know what you can expect from it).
You also have to have maturity in markets that free software is not up to par, in virtualization the king is VMWare, KVM and OpenVZ are good alternatives, but they stay there, alternatives, in certain aspects they cannot compete. At the Active Directory level, just now Samba 4 resembles a more useful Domain Controller (with limitations), it cannot replace a Windows Server yet, or as I said before in another comment, the Android Java VM is closed, and the OpenJDK has shortcomings compared to the Oracle JDK.
I have acquaintances who in order to keep the puerza in their open soul, they eat cute garrones, for example a friend who virtualizes in his work with OpenVZ, it was impossible for him to virtualize a Windows system, since the accounting people of the company work with Memory, and the server has to be MS yes or yes (users also have rights to choose their software, I do not share the evangelizing idea that if someone wants to use something that is not open, discreetly force him to use free software, I don't think anyone have authority to do that).
Both Java 7 and Java 8 are based on OpenJDK, and in fact to this day there is hardly any very specific lack of official Java with respect to OpenJDK. And to my knowledge Dalvik is released under Apache 2.0.
I don't say anything about virtualization because it's a topic that I don't touch on at that level.
I totally agree with you, there are many Linux users who tear their clothes just by mentioning windows and do not think that the vast majority of us teach ourselves to use a computer in the window system, in my case I started using Linux when I realized that my computer, instead of improving over time, was getting slower, that despite having a good antivirus sometimes one would sneak in and the cumbersome process of downloading updates that many times worsened the performance of the computer. 6 years ago I had no idea that linux existed, it is more I thought that all computers used windows even the mac hahaha, I remember googling there is some really effective and lightweight antivirus and in a forum that I reviewed they mentioned linux, it caught my attention that They said that windows viruses were simply not a risk that antivirus was not necessary and apart from what I fell in love with was the compiz cube, I told myself I want something like that, I decided to investigate more and discovered that it was free, it was not to make a copy pirated to avoid paying licenses, it was free and I decided to download it (by the way it was ubuntu 10.04) and arming myself with the courage to install it together with windows vista, the first impression was that it loaded faster than with the other system, it looked good, It felt like a friendly environment and it was, those who weren't friendly at that time were the "Linux experts" users. They ended up asking me how to install a program in Ubuntu because I can't findthe executable file, I did not know about the console or the software center, a comment that I remember was one that said, -if you don't know how to install a program in linux you are in the hole better go back to enjoy the viruses- go that burned That comment and worst of all, nobody could or knew how to install a program, I got frustrated and decided to return to my beloved and hated windows vista and forget about linux but I couldn't, the need to change so
Well, I raise my hand and I agree with Elav one hundred percent.
I use a total of two proprietary programs on my systems and a closed operating system on the mobile:
firmware-atheros
Adobe Flash plugin
Android 4.x on my Huawei g740 without apps that do not come in the Huawei + JuiceSSH rom
As for operating systems, I use Debian 8 and FreeBSD 10.1. Debian with Gnome-Shell and FreeBSD, being on the server, does not use an environment since mc and ee: D are enough for me.
Hahahaha very good post from some time ago I have read offensive comments on some websites or this one because people who are in Gnu / Linux post about proprietary software or support it and the truth is very difficult as some comments say and the post that one is 100% faithful to free software since there are external agents that prevent us as applications at work, applications for university use and drivers for the hardware (although I have tried to use free software but everything has a limit), but I really feel happy with this community and how much certain free software applications advance to have a higher level, I will support and love free software for its transparency and I will love it with all my heart, this post is to reflect and always support people who enter this beautiful community .
Greetings and successes in your work.
Well, the truth is I agree with your opinion, I use Ubuntu for pleasure and pleasure since it seems stable to me and meets my necessary requirements to work and when I need something to do with windows, I use wine or virtual box and now, it's a pleasure not A religion.
Hello good afternoon!
I have a modest blog: http://www.informaticalinux.es , where my claim is to learn and motivate others to do so, my sources are the web and wikipedia.
In this video, I leave a clear impression of the reasons that I think lead to the coexistence of the free and the private, as a concept of compatibility, and that I think is not a bad thing at the moment, in order to make GNU / Linux known:
https://informaticagnulinuxlpic1.wordpress.com/category/1-desde-el-principio/6-compatibilidad-del-hardware/
Using distributions like Ubuntu, I consider it to be good, because at the moment thanks to these distributions where the free and the private coexist, in a world governed by the private…., It gives us the advantage of making GNU / Linux and its greatness known and even Stallman's ethical values.
I think that everything has to have limits to respect and coexistence of ideas, what I do not see well is the monopoly of high corporations such as Windows and Apple, and Ubuntu, it is a test that breaks with the values of these other operating systems, and is forcing to change commercial strategies forced because the user is getting to know this new way of creating computing, which only a few knew.
I think that Stallman's vision would create a better world, but I think that evolution towards this goal, which is now so radical, is not viable without first going through coexistence, proprietary and free, such as Ubuntu, and a change of vision, and I would dare to say consciences, because all evolution is not possible without the knowledge of other ideas and the change of concept that another way is possible.
I grew up with Windows, and what has sincerely reminded me is that there are other operating systems that do not cover as much bad function and viruses, as in the history of Windows, and they have not made it swallow yes or yes ..., I remember As a young man, if I had spent all the time using and learning programs instead of seeing what was happening to the operating system and formatting and reinstalling, surely now I mastered a number of tools that after all is the goal of a computer, that you It serves a specific purpose, not that you spend your time on a system that does not work. I know it is a hard criticism for Windows lovers, and apparently in Windows XP and thereafter it has been improved a lot, but even so the base of this system does not convince me. For this reason I got to know GNU / Linux, and I did not start it before, because I was a normal user, who did not understand beyond a graphical environment, and Linux was always delayed in this aspect, so Ubuntu has given us the opportunity to a lot of running a whole team even if we have to use proprietary drivers.
GNU / Linux is an operating system that works, and to preserve the spirit of computer science and cooperation and learning for universities and laboratories and projects, it is ideal for not having the cost of licenses, and this is admirable by all programmers that make this system possible, and I like this.
And this last comment is not anti-windows, because Microsoft really makes very good software, for example Microsoft Access, it is an easy-to-use tool without the need to know programs, which makes your work or working life much easier, and in GNU / Linux or free software, I have not seen a tool as powerful and easy as this one.
In short, I would like a better world, and for this we need to have stallmanesss, hehe, to pull the extreme that others with a monopoly want to drag us to the other extreme, so Ubuntu can come to plant an intermediate point of view that leaves us coexist with all, which in the end is what it is about.
What is your opinion?
Greetings Ramón Nieto.
Ubuntu commercially follows the Apple and MS line a lot.
Reading the headline, I thought: "I think I remember I deleted my deblinux subscription." Fortunately, the content of the post made me realize that it was another blog.
I share your opinion and I also understand the reason for the post: some, if not most, of the comments that can be read in the previous post about Microsoft, are regrettable and embarrassing.
Good entry, it would also have been better if you addressed the issue of the supposed supremacy that certain users feel for the simple fact of using X distro, because there are never any classics that always come out with »no thanks, I'll take my - insert your here linuxera distro-.
There is talk of respect, but not even among Linux users do they respect each other.
I believe that everyone is free to use whatever they want. At home on my laptop, I use Mageia 4, which works like a cinema, and I also have a desktop with dual-boot windows and Mageia, because there are times, although few, that I have to use windows.
At work I use Windows, because it depends on Windows programs and the erp is from Microsoft, that is more than enough ...
Anyway, I always try to support a linux installation, because whenever someone comes to me to repair the pc, they tell me to install the latest windows, but don't cost me a penny…. So I recommend installing linux, for regular use it is more than enough and there is no need to go hacking. I have installed computers with Mageia, and since I installed them, 0 problems, and the questions about the operation of an application have not reached 10.
Everyone can use whatever they want, what if I see bad or hypocritical, is wanting to have the latest proprietary software and not wanting to pay a penny for it ...
I use Linux because it is because I like it and it has better performance than the damn windows. The world is not prepared to live only on free software, we will have to make use of proprietary technologies at some point whether we like it or not.
I don't think Stallman hasn't made use of something that is made with proprietary software. It is one thing that you do not have a mobile phone, which is fine if you don't need it at all, but it seems excessive to have to see only content in free formats. That is not freedom, that is outright fanaticism.
I generally do not agree. Free software may not be a religion, but it is a philosophical / political movement beyond distributions. It has its own way of seeing the world, its own ethics, it is changeable and interpretable.
On the other hand, there are many who choose middle terms. It is as in politics the center parties or as a large part of the left that folded for the welfare state, abandoning the ideals of revolution.
Finally there are those who reject his philosophy outright.
In my view it is natural that these three visions collide and argue. In general, I like to argue so I don't see anything wrong with someone questioning the other's way of life. That is not restricting your freedom. Although there is a limit: if someone was ever insulted for not being a purist, I would not call them a hypocrite or a Taliban. It is simply one troll of so many that abound on the internet. Why break your head more?
Without going to classify myself I like (in general) free software and Stallman's philosophy. And I believe that free software is not only convenient for me but it is really a tool and a path to a better world. Besides, I am not a computer scientist (I am finishing my degree in geology and they do not teach me programming there) but it is something that I have been learning thanks to the fact that there is a free culture on the internet (although I have bought a couple of books with copyright along the way ). I am currently doing my thesis making a physical model with python, so I am also grateful. But yes, I have steam installed and the proprietary drivers. I suppose that if I ever meet Stallman I will have to say to him: «Lord, I am not worthy that you enter my house but one word from you will be enough to heal me» Haha 😀
Exactly what I think.
Well, it's the truth and I coordinate with you. I use Archlinux because its philosophy is not as closed as can be the case of other distros, it allows the installation of proprietary software as free to give ease and comfort to its users that is why I am so faithful to this distro 😉. Also, I think that private software is not completely bad, it has its advantages and disadvantages, but as you say, if we have to use it, we use it because we want to.
elav: it seems to me that with this article you are taking people further away from free software and its true focus.
I just want to leave two links to two books that I hope you could read to better understand the ideas of free software:
Free software for a free society
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/fsfs/free_software2.es.pdf
Free culture
http://www.worcel.com/archivos/6/Cultura_libre_Lessig.pdf
Hmm ... I read that book up there once, and I'll do it again. What happens to me with Stallman is that with his ideology. It seems that he wants to be like a God and that what he says (that's why I didn't pay attention to the book), it has to be like a Bible to follow. According to Stallman in said book:
I do not use Free Software for a social question (although in a certain way it is implicit), I use it for a practical question, of necessity, of taste. So, would I be in favor of the OpenSource movement and not Free Software? Stallman sees it as a question of values, and I don't think that is correct. If I used Proprietary Software in an illegal way, I would be betraying my values, my morals, by doing something wrong, but what if the Proprietary Software that I use is legal? .. What would I be betraying then?
Well, it seems that you have conflicting points that you cannot reconcile, reading the book can be good for you and for many, because from what you write it seems that you have not read it completely.
You should for a moment forget about Stallman and focus more on free software, which exists before him. By the way, we owe him a lot, even if we don't like to hear or read it, 🙂
And I also recommend reading the second book, it will give you a broader picture.
My aim is not to make fights with anyone, I expose my point of view and the ideas that are in the books as well as you politely expose your ideas.
Greetings and let's enjoy life while we can.
I agree with the content of the article, although it seems to me that it was written in a "moment of anger." It goes too much to shock with the position of some, when in fact I think that the intention of the note is that of "live and let live".
Likewise, I repeat, I agree with the content and share the premise that in this world so dominated by M $ and other blood-sucking corporations, the important thing is to make the alternative Free and Open source Software known. That is the most important thing a person trying to break the domain of proprietary software should aim for.
I was always "angry" with the few possibilities that Windows gave and many programs that I used in that OS, but I must say that despite having been a computer enthusiast (I never studied this officially) for years, I knew almost zero on Linux and Free Software. If nobody tells you about it, or nobody uses it, or when they want to "evangelize" you, they impose it on you along with a lot of smoke about the ideology of the FSF, the receiver is likely to get upset and end up ignoring it.
In my case, it was enough for someone to tell me about it in a good way, even if it is very high, for the bug to bite me and start reading about it little by little. After 15 days I was already testing 4 distros until I decided on Ubuntu. And now I am a happy Linux user and a lot of free software, trying to teach and preach the benefits of this side of the fence to those who want to listen to me. But always trying not to confront and let the other choose, looking for the point of interest from which they themselves can approach and try this alternative.
Because we must be honest, Linux has grown a lot but it is still an alternative to M $ and Apple, which are the dominators of the desktop field.
And something that I keep in mind when I try to evangelize is that ordinary people do not have much interest in hearing technical things for more than 5 minutes. If you did not hook them in that time, you can see on their faces that it is something that exceeds them and they will not be interested. They prefer to click without thinking and have compatibility with everything that the rest of the mass uses, it is not easy to make them understand the benefits of the change.
Agree with you, but not with the article.
I think that being a fundamentalist of anything leads us to be intolerant of others. Everyone has their needs and must satisfy them. As long as it doesn't hurt anyone, all good. I agree with the note. I know people who are Google fans and would not use Mozilla Firefox for nothing. Or you want Linux and you hate Windows. Each with his own. And to paraphrase some enlightened thinker: "Freedom is free"
Best regards.
You're a !!!! lol lies. There really is a lot of truth in what this article says that the ideal of every Gnu / linux user should be to get to use and understand really free software. It seems as if we were Linux users not Gnu / linux users, however reaching that point requires jumping from Ubuntu to Debian, trying slackware until reaching Parabola or gNewSense. Maybe what you call hypocrisy is really the fear of disconnecting from the matrix entirely, which is easier than it sounds even though the decision is so difficult. I confess that at some point totally free software seemed exaggerated, however I also confess that a few months ago I found myself looking for completely free software and asking a friend who uses it about -how to live with totally free software without being limited in this world from proprietary sofwre- (could be a good name for an upcoming article). So maybe one day we will all wake up, it's a slow road.
I missed reading the most substantial part of the article and well, it really does not seem wrong to me to become a user who uses radically free Gnu / linux software, the problem is to feel better for using this or that, indeed, my respects to the Windows, Mac and more users. But if it is difficult to speak and not to err, the Human being generally contradicts himself in every step he takes.
The amount of comments when an article touches on these types of issues is incredible.
I commented on the previous article, saying that it was like selling your soul to the devil, but at no time did I tell anyone who wants to sell it that I was going to oppose it! it is in all their rights and that I think is a personal choice "freedom".
That I say in a public comment what can happen to you does not mean that it will happen to you, nor am I saying that you pay attention to me, it is that many times the words of the language do not represent the same for different readers.
Regarding using closed drivers, if the person already has the pc, then I do not say anything, but if it turns out that it is known in advance that gnu / linux is going to be used, I think it is better to investigate a little before going to buy the super board video nvidia latest model, to later find out that they only walk in an acceptable way with the proprietary driver ... the same applies to wireless network cards.
Nor are comparisons with analogies useful, the software is something unique.
The hardware is the determining factor, together with the companies and the patents of their developments, they go for the only thing that a company sees «money».
Everyone's comments are valid, each person is a world of perceptions, why get angry and not respect the opinions of others?
Saying in public the "malicious" practices that companies use in their closed software and hardware, I think it is not being hypocritical, rather it is a way of making people see where the business of that very benevolent company is.
Peace and love.
It is a great reality.
I have been a linux user for about… 4 years. Taking into account that whoever approached this world was a "religious" of it, but I realized several things at the moment and I questioned the same thing, how could I claim to be 100% free of proprietary software if I used Illustrator? Since then I decided to use Linux to my liking, because it suits me well, because I like it, I am attracted to that idea of giving myself a spin when something does not work for me, but when it is something related to my profession, well I return to Windows and do what I have what to do and look Voila !! I am still alive!!
And the truth is I am against that so ... square way of insulting, it is better to give arguments, like the ones you use in this post, to get people to use Linux. It is your decision to use it or not.
It is not about staying alive or not, it is about promoting free software as a form of cooperation and exchange.
What is the meaning of this article? How many people are there who see you as a freak or judge you for not using 100% free software?
Rather you have to worry about the other side, those who use windows and say that linux is shit and they never used it or used it 3 minutes once.
It is true that several of us came to Linux for its advantages, but along the way we learned about the philosophy of free software, and that does not change the fact that we can proclaim it. We were all ignorant at one time and still are.
It seems to me that this free software thing is in part similar to a religion and that's fine, that's the way it has to be, it's a philosophy of life and often mutual cooperation. It is not good that there are people who judge someone for using proprietary software, but they are the least.
That is why I do not see much sense in the article, in part, because it is aimed at a minority of rat people, which are the fewest, but also because the philosophy of free software is fine, I don't know why some people keep judging it, you have to encourage the use of free software.
I do not see the harm in using the pc for what you like, after all they are within their rights. However, I don't agree with your approach to the article. The pc is a tool more than anything, it seems to me that in the absence of free software it is fine to use proprietary software as you say, although there are people who use only free software to handle it well, they do not have access to everything, but I do not see what bad to encourage the use of free software as an alternative.
Also, I'm not sure if you got confused or what. You started the article talking about the hypocrisy of the people, but is the person you say who proclaims the use of free software a hypocrite? For what reasons? It seems to me that you lack a clearer explanation, because it is not well understood what you want to say at the beginning of the article, besides that afterwards you only talk about your opinion, instead of talking about the title of the article, which is about people's hypocrisy. Only at the end do you talk about it again, but it lacks cohesion with the beginning for me.
What are the hypocritical people then?
At least we tried, really preaching about free software without using totally free software is not an error even if it has some hypocrisy, not bad, if you understand that to know different paths you play little by little, go ahead with Ubuntu, go ahead with any distribution the important thing is to persist and be patient.
-how to live with totally free software without being limited in this world of proprietary software-
If someone is encouraged to write an article with this title it would be interesting and the Gnu / linux world would appreciate it.
I loved your article, for a novice like me it was clear and direct. It would be good if all Linux lovers thought the same.
Greetings.
If you are new I suggest you not let yourself be guided by the article and form your own opinion, because of course it has little.
In short, this is about Freedom, and above all the Free Software Philosophy, this should be the biggest premise, Make use of technology, with full freedom.
At the bottom of this debate on the use of free software, there is something that I would like you to clarify for me: who develops free software? What is your motivation in developing it?
And here, the key question is: how would programmers make a living if all software was 100% free and free? Everything here indicates that the answer would be that 100% of the software could be free but not all free, since those who work it out have to live on something.
If you develop a program as free software, you can well sell it to people, companies you want at the price you want.
Free software, as many think, does not necessarily have to be free. What free software indicates is that when you sell a program you must deliver the source code.
On the other hand, the greatest economic force of free software is in the services that can be offered with the program. Many companies such as Red Hat, which is perhaps one of the largest companies that work with free software, has this business model and as you can research on the Internet it is doing very well.
Another reality is that of the independent developer, who makes software for small businesses, he may well sell his free software program and get paid for his work and make a living from software development. Free software does not necessarily have to be free as many think and make others believe that they have just arrived in the free software community and create confusion and chaos.
Greetings and let's enjoy life while we can.
Be careful there. Free software is not sold because you would be violating the freedom of use.
What Red Hat sells is support, access to the packages in the repo (you can perfectly use Red Hat, and have CentOS repos), and the rights to use its image included in the OS (red hat logo on the wallpaper , for example, or its name in any script / config file, as it is a trademark). SUSE Enterprise does the same.
You don't need to buy red hat to access its repositories, and if you downloaded it, and changed all those aspects, you could use it perfectly.
That's why the red hat clones (like CentOS) what they do is replace everything from red hat and that's it (the graph is replaced with something generic, and the references to red hat change it to "the provider", as soon as a new version.
@Master of the Wind
Curiously, not more than a month ago in another site they told me the same thing, in the end it turned out that the colleague had never read a Free Software license in his life, due to "laziness".
The GPL makes it very clear:
"You may CHARGE ANY PRICE or NO PRICE for each copy that you convey, and you may offer support or warranty protection for a fee."
That is why Free Software MAY BE a commercial product, but NOT NECESSARILY IT IS.
If someone tells me:
-I need a software to carry the inventory of my warehouse.
I can answer:
-I'm selling you one, it would cost you $ X and it would take me Y weeks to deliver it to you.
It would be Free Software, this means that ...
-You can use the program as you want, if it helps you to carry inventories of other things that are not your warehouse you can do it. (Freedom 0)
-You will have access to the source code and documentation, you will be able to study it, and even modify it (Freedom 1)
-If you have friends with warehouses that need inventory, you can give them faithful copies of the software (Documentation, code, compiled program) (Freedom 2)
-The same as the previous one, but with copies that you have modified (Freedom 3)
As you see, Free Software can be sold.
Another thing is to condition its use to the payment of an abusive license. What happens with the proprietary one, they themselves tell you very clearly, "I am not selling you the software, but a user license."
@Staff 6 May, 2015 3:35 PM
Another thing is to condition its use to the payment of an abusive license. What is the matter with the private one, they themselves tell you very clearly, "I am not selling you the software, but a user license."
Exactly and they do that precisely to be able to bring to trial anyone who dares to disassemble the code and make it public ... if they really sold it to you, they could not impose the clause that you cannot disassemble it and find out what you do not want you find out.
All the drama is given by the interests of spying on the masses, mostly for commercial and governmental purposes (public affairs).
Today a computer, tablet, mobile, cell phone is not much use without an internet connection, I know many who would hang themselves if they were without their social network for a week
Then come companies with the idea of a million users at a dollar a head to tame the masses with advertising and consumerism, since we are only numbers in their accounts.
These companies need reliable data on what people are looking for and unfortunately tracking is what excites them the most since they can dream that if they shook millions of users they could get their million clients for a dollar a head.
There are two types of companies, those that create freeware programs to put tracking inside the code and sell it to the second type of companies that are the clients of this bulk data.
When I see a freeware or freeware program or service, I wonder where the "profit" business is because, as far as I know, nobody lifts a finger at a company if it isn't for money.
What the companies that make freeware for gnu / linux are wanting is precisely that, to do the same thing they do in windows, osx, etc ... to make money directly or indirectly with what people are looking for or doing privately.
The question is, if that is what many want, to give up their privacy in exchange for a freeware that almost always has replacements in the gnu world.
I think I have not offended anyone, the best way is to see why they do not give the code ... of ethics, nothing, when money comes, ethics goes.
At the bottom of this debate on the use of free software, there is something that I would like you to clarify for me: who develops free software? What is your motivation in developing it?
And here, the key question is: how would programmers make a living if all software was 100% free and free? Everything here indicates that the answer would be that 100% of the software could be free but not all free, since those who work it out have to live on something.
In the end, what I come to refer to is that except for the free software debacle (perhaps caused by legal reasons) both it and proprietary software will continue to coexist indefinitely. They are like the two sides of the same coin. Or so I think.
It depends. Some are developed based on communities that do it altruistically and others are developed in companies. Larger communities, as they should, have fewer problems because there are many people around the globe. Companies, like Red Hat, have no problems either because they are well positioned with the sale of services. Those who suffer the most, as always, are the small communities, which often have to be forced to ask for donations, in fact the large communities also ask, but they do not have the danger of disintegrating their project due to lack of funds.
Free software democratizes technological development and generates greater knowledge and awareness about software, even among people outside the "computer" world. It is also almost always contrary to the monetarist principles that direct proprietary and market software, that is, it is made by and with the community with love, fun and a desire for self-improvement.
that is its grace, it is collaborative; makes it possible to collectively build progress and make it later accessible to all subjects or organisms that need them. I mean, it generates benefits for everyone, everyone. That is why our duty is to defend it and contribute to its growth and dissemination.
Being a Taliban does not build, help, or make sense, much less if it is for its own sake.
greetings from Chile! great site <3
First of all I just clarify, although because of the topic I should not, I am a faithful reader of this blog and its content is very interesting and useful for me in general. The following is just for discussion.
Cup of tea:
[«That is why my dear readers that I ask you, say NO to hypocrisy. Let's use GNU / Linux distributions for fun, for fun, for whatever we want, but let's not make a religion of it. " ]
You encourage GNU / linux to be used for whatever they want. And in the infinite reasons that a person can have to use it, is to do it for a religious conviction, or even, although it seems strange to say it, he can use it to appear to be an apostle of stallman. Each person has the right to do what they want, as long as they do not physically or psychologically harm another person.
[«Live and let live. And if you don't agree with what I think, fine, then use what you want, but think twice before lashing out at someone for thinking differently, for using something different, even if it's closed. "]
From the way you express yourself in the article, I have the feeling that it is almost due to "violent emotion" haha, as if it were a response to someone who attacked you for not being an apostle of RMS. But you fall back into the same thing, a contradiction, "live and let live" that includes you towards the fervent defenders of the Free Software philosophy, even with the trolls who should only annoy you for annoying, it is their style of life, his way of seeing reality with respect to things.
And this is where I want to leave my conclusion.
Everyone can use what they want, how they want, even if in the process they are violating some copyright law or whatever. And everyone can have the reason they want to use it, even lash out at someone who thinks differently, whatever their thinking. What you have to rethink is with yourself. Does it really affect me that 1, 2 or 100 Stallman apostles call me heretic for not using a 100% free So? The most sensible answer should be no, although it depends on the personality of each one haha, and the same in reverse, if the anti-RMS pragmatists treat me as a hippie or whatever, does this change my thinking or affect my life? noo, that's what life is all about, coexisting with everything that is different and adapting, always looking for what suits us best.
This is an interesting debate for me to observe for all the philosophical, scientific and ethical concepts that emerge. But I think it is absurd to try to debate both the ideas of each other, since it is an infinite loop haha. This coexistence of ideas is the essence of GNU / Linux, which makes it so interesting in part as a tool, and as a community. For my part, I think that the Taliban should never be extinguished, nor the pragmatists, since that would indicate the end of this beautiful environment. Some see it as a division, but I believe that this diversity of thoughts and styles makes this what it is today and what will achieve its overcoming, either as a system or set of ideals.
If you are right this is an infinite loop lol. Thanks for the comment.
Man, I don't see it as hypocrisy.
I use free software but I don't go around bragging about it. Stallman's ideas are too radical and I also tell you what is already discussed in the article:
If I need to use proprietary software, I just use it. It would be stupid not to.
I like the GNU / Linux philosophy but there are still applications that are far from being able to compete with their counterparts in commercial software. For example:
Corel Draw vs Inkscape. Both for vector design: The first, although more general in use, is more suitable for printing jobs while the second is more oriented to the creation of web graphics.
Draw right now is far superior to any other free vector design application, I try to pull Inkscape but if I need to use Corel Draw I will use it.
And like that case there are many others besides the graphics drivers. I can have a 3D graphic of the ciborium but if I don't put proprietary drivers in it, I won't be able to get the same performance as with free drivers. What are you going to do?
I said, I like Linux but I am not a radical of it or of any other operating system.
I've been using Arch for 3-4 years and rarely have I had to start Windows on my computer to do something that I couldn't with the penguin.
Interesting entry, and a bit extreme indeed. I use Gnu / Linux for now I'm on debian, I think that the issue of using or not using free software in these times cannot reach such extremes, in a world as fast as today availability is needed either in work / studies one it looks for what it needs for its development or personal use, what if I must admit is that I have seen many "Taliban" almost forcing you to enter their religion. The truth is I entered this world alone, no one forced me and if I enter it is only because I find it entertaining, nothing more than that, others with their rules that it is free, that it is stable and blah blah. I use Linux because it entertains me and I learn. I don't use a cell phone either, but not by following the example of RMS just because I don't like cell phones.
Everyone is free to use / not use what they want.
regards
Dictionary, how much need you do.
Hypocrisy is not saying that something is bad and using it, hypocrisy is saying that something bad is good because you use it and do not dare to accept your guilt.
"hypocrisy. (From the gr. Ὑποκρισία).
F. Pretending of QUALITIES or FEELINGS contrary to those that are truly had or experienced. »
RAE
Hypocrite:
-Smoking is bad for your health.
-Nooo, smoking is not bad, the doctors don't know anything, let me continue smoking.
NOT hypocritical:
-Smoking is bad for your health.
-I know, it's bad, but I do it because I like the taste and feel.
Hypocrite:
-Proprietary software is ethically wrong.
-Noooo, it is practical, and ethical if I buy your license.
NOT hypocritical.
-Proprietary software is ethically wrong.
-I know, it's bad, but I use it for X reason.
So, no hypocrisy, if someone is aware that their software is unethical, and still uses it for pure pleasure (a very different case than using it for external reasons, such as work, for example) the most that can be called it is incongruous.
In the same way this article is not hypocritical, it is incongruous and cowardly.
The first, because when someone says that X article is "shit" or worse, respect is demanded, which seems to only come from the commentators to the editor, but not the other way around.
"You can't say that my job is bad, but I call you a hypocrite, OF COURSE, NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF OFFENDING EH!"
And the second, because it is dedicated to "groups", if you have the face of lynching someone / some through the media, at least you have to do it with a name or nick.
Did you read the article correctly? Because that's exactly what I'm talking about. I am not calling a hypocrite who uses Private Software, licensed or not, I am calling a hypocrite whoever tells you: Use LibreOffice, it is the best, it is the best and in the end you make your documents with MS Office emulated in Wine.
Coward? Coward is hiding behind a nick to make a comment or offend someone. I don't see anything cowardly in my article.
The question here is ... who am I calling hypocrite, you? I don't think so, unless you have identified with it. I do not mention any nicknames because I have not had any to mention how the hell am I going to know what each one uses, or what it says it uses to name someone hypocritical by name?
«Did you read the article correctly? Because that's exactly what I'm talking about. I am not calling a hypocrite who uses Private Software, licensed or not, I am calling a hypocrite who tells you: Use LibreOffice, it is the best, it is the best and in the end you make your documents with MS Office emulated in Wine. »
Yes, I read it, did you read correctly the definition of hypocrite offered by the RAE?
Because if you keep thinking that doing something even though it seems wrong is hypocrisy, you have a terrible reading comprehension.
Whether anonymity is a sign of cowardice could be debated, but it is another issue.
What is clear is that an accusation thrown into the air, tinged with the typical "I say it from respect / it is not to offend anyone", is cowardly, whether anonymous, or as in this case, manifest.
And in the end, you ask me the questions that you should ask yourself, before publishing an article like this in the mass media.
"Who am I calling a hypocrite, you?"
That we would like to know, and only you know the answer, but it is clear that you did not dare to tell him directly, either with your name or with a nickname.
"How the hell am I going to know what each one of them uses, or what they say they use to name someone a hypocrite by name?"
Exact. And if you had questioned yourself, I'm sure you would see that you can't know, you don't know what they use OR WHY THEY USE IT, so accusing them of being hypocritical is out of place.
«... it's the best and in the end you make your documents with MS Office emulated in Wine ...»
@elav, you are missing something important, and that is: and with pirate license.
Hahahahaha 😀
XDD really !!
Thanks to the philosophy of Mr. Richard M. Stallman and his followers, society is transforming into something better. Call me "tuxliban", but I have it clear: BLESSED PHILOSOPHY! TO DEATH WITH HER!
Those of you who already know me know that I have never hidden the fact that I have proprietary software: the official drivers for Nvidia, Steam, my USB tuner for DTT, Windows games and now, for reasons of the course I'm doing, Dreamweaver (which even my teacher doesn't like very much, but he has to give it, with how comfortable we were with the Notepad ++)
I defend Free Software and Culture and I would like to use 100% free software, but it is something that unfortunately, at least in the immediate future, is going to happen. Okay, the free drivers from AMD (I can't remember the name) and Nvidia (Nouveau) are improving, but they are still far away if you want to use them for something that requires all the power of your graphics.
Good!
I totally agree with your article.
I use free software because I like it, it is more comfortable for me and it is more similar to my ideas. But it is clear, that it is not enough at all worked, what are the drivers and others "unfortunately" in the end you end up using something private. I am one of the people who always recommend the use of Free Software, but if it is true that if there is no other option, you have to use paid programs or programs that are not directly compatible with your OS and you have to look at the window and start it .
I use the computer that I give, with Kubuntu I have more than enough. And if I have to use a program that is not compatible with my OS, I start Güindows and do what I have to do, and then I restart and again with Kubuntu. That said, you don't have to be so closed-minded. I believe that people like you, or like me, try to weigh free software and squeeze out everything we can and in the event that it is not possible, we must not be so extreme not to use programs that to your end they are benefiting you in one way or another. I believe that the majority, or I hope, who reads this blog, is from your philosophy and we know what world we are in.
In summary, you have to squeeze the use in Linux and above all enjoy it, and if you can't, nothing happens
regards
I completely disagree, I am a Debianite and a Windows 8.1 user and what do you want me to tell you? I try to extrapolate everything I can to free software but for the mere fact that if something fails I can repair it myself, but that does not mean I stop using software private, although if it is true that the one I use is usually more out of necessity or in water if I like it, but I do not evangelize everyone who uses what they want and I do not reject it for it. The Software is to be used not to put it on a pedestal hahahaha.
Well a greeting and it's great to read you.
I paste a comment that I made weeks ago in barrapunto in relation to this, the news was Moral dilemmas for 'makers'.
And I comment:
«» »
I believed that the article dealt with the issue of how HackerSpaces are disappearing and are replaced by the aseptic and clean version of MakerSpaces ideologies that are well regarded and receive subsidies.
It's like the other theme that "open source" is triumphing but not the spirit of "free software" and you see people with notebooks from the apple with stickers of the github octopus using free javascript libraries and on top of that they call you a communist or arnarkista for telling them that there is something beyond just showing the code that there is a community and there is an ethic of free culture.
But hey then there are the old Linuxeros who are now Manzaneros and on top of that, they show off.
Stop the world that I get off of it.
«» »
I very much agree with the article.
I believe that it is fair, that it is good and that it is necessary to defend the use of free software (and open source in general) whenever possible, and I do. And I think so because I share many of the principles that Stallman promulgates, because it is free (let's see, things are like that, we are not going to pay one thing when there is another at least as good, if not better, free) and also because I think it is better in many aspects, starting with security, customization possibilities, a variety of desktop environments, a variety of distros ...
But I agree with the content of the article. I believe that the PC is, fundamentally, a tool and not an end in itself, and the same can be said of software. And since we do not always have a free tool compared to a proprietary one, nothing happens to use the proprietary one. The drivers are an example, and not only because they exist or not free, sometimes it is about achieving a performance of the hardware at the height and others, it is simply that the hardware works.
In addition, I like video games and, unfortunately, the ones that I like very free games are not, so I have to use proprietary software everywhere:
-I need to use the Nvidia drivers, yes or yes because, in addition to the performance in games, the free ones do not go with my graphics (at least in Ubuntu 14.04). Come on, either I use them or I throw away the graph.
-The games that I like and have a Linux version are proprietary, or I don't enjoy them, or I assume that I have to use proprietary software.
-Games that do not have a linux version also force me to have a partition dedicated to Windows. No more.
I could do without many other things (Google Chrome, Dropbox, Flash, ...) but even using them I don't think you have to tear your clothes. It seems to me much more important to be aware and value the possibilities that free software offers us, use it to the maximum extent possible, promote it and collaborate as little as one can, than to use it exclusively, which is also very difficult.
I already say, fundamentally, I agree with the article.
Greetings to all and all.
The author must be traumatized because he has an uncle embers next to him who makes his existence bitter, speaking of his lack of coherence for not using 100% Free Software. Well, Elav, if you have a rude person next to you, you should re-educate him or clarify that you are not interested in being burned. Your problem and the lack of respect for the other that I don't think should be discussed in a software blog. Bad manners, we will agree, nobody likes it.
But the author's (and most readers) response is to almost suggest that a good part of SL users are religious Taliban. For me, those of proprietary software are more Taliban, but in any case it is an inert and absurd debate as already pointed out #Joaco, a debate for adolescents. If I use 31% SL and you use 49%, I don't care.
What matters is with what conscience I do it, as #Staff points out. The debate has already come up several times and we always talk the same thing. That in this blog you are not from the philosophy of free software, and that you use it for other reasons (because it works for you, you like it, it seems to you that this way you are more geeks or cooler, because you can customize more ...). Well, I use the SL for the first reasons, but I read this blog for the second. I do not pretend to find here reflections beyond the technical. And I don't think that every two months it is necessary to clarify that this blog is about that. Perhaps if you put it on the page 'We' it would not be necessary for you to be despising every so often those who do not keep your position.
Now, as you get into the subject, I wanted you to see a couple of things.
As I say I use the SL for political reasons. Yes, politicians. Because whoever supports the philosophy of free software supports a political project of transformation on an idea: what we believe can be legitimately owned and what not. And many of us think that a good part of the intangible wealth of our times should not be (not already possessed, but) possessable, it should not have an owner that limits how transparent this idea is, or how modifiable. Because ideas (and SL), by their nature, are transparent, modifiable and transferable at cost 0 (in our times at least).
Proselytizing this idea / philosophy does not make me a Taliban, but probably a political being, something many of you don't want to hear or talk about. But you do not stop being one precisely because you can choose. Because when you use (by choice) a software (and many other things, material and immaterial) you do not simply exercise that sacred freedom of which you speak, but you form a type of relationship in society. You play a lot, even if you don't want to see it, the freedom and other rights of others. "My freedom ends where that of others begins" is a fallacy like a truck that pretends to pass itself off as this idea that I present, but that deep down hides the basic idea of anaco-liberalism: the less freedom others have, the more freedom I will have me; my freedom is understood as a personal possession versus the possessions of others. Freedom not as a social right but as an individual possession. What Locke understood as the philosophical basis of liberalism, the right to property as an all-encompassing natural right.
And this thread of comments shows how deep the capitalist individualist spirit has penetrated. Nobody in the forum, except the few who have positions opposed to Elav, understands freedom as a social value. According to most, "I am free because I can choose." The most religious and indoctrinating individualism has penetrated to the bone in all of us, and it is difficult for us to understand that the freedom promoted by some political movements (much of what is called the left, and also other voices like that of Master Stallman) is freedom of society: a society is free when it does not develop relationships of oppression / obligation / coercion between its individuals. If I buy soccer balls made in India by exploited children I may be choosing the best ball for my purpose, but I doubt that I am making my society freer. My choice here has nothing to do with freedom in the social sense of the word. Of course, this social sense never mattered to many, or does not even exist. Freedom is for you to be able to turn your desktop green. People do not have the right to Health (with capital letters, as a social right), but to buy health (as an individual right), and the proof is that they can choose an insurance company ;-D
As for the effects on that freedom, as I understand it, the heavy friend who recommends free alternatives to Microsoft Office, crushes you so that you do not forget that Nvidia only develops closed drivers in the hope that your next machine takes these aspects into account ... and that he is NOT going to fight because they legally prohibit 'choosing', he has nothing to do with companies that develop proprietary software and patents, they spend huge amounts of money and resources (of those that give us efficiency with what many fills their mouths) in commercial visitors of administrations and companies around the world, lobbies that bribe standardization bodies, lawyers who scrutinize the rights of the community to steal them, etcetera etcetera. All for the greater glory of 'freedom' (business, of course). And nobody sees that Micro $ fot is religious, how curious.
And I insist, if this blog does not like that philosophy or policy, do not bring it up, we are already very clear about your position, and those of us who do not share it have already decided a long time ago whether to read you or not. I do, by the way 😉
I totally agree with you!
In a comment that has not yet been published he tried to convey the same idea. I suppose that due to the amount of comments the moderation will be a bit saturated.
In the post he added that accusing someone of incoherent does not invalidate the argument itself. And this is what is done in this post: the argument that it is more ethical to use SL because the one who says it does not comply with it is invalidated.
Yes, as you say, they say 'Since I have no ideology or principles, I am more coherent than you, that you have them and you do not comply with them 100%. Therefore, I conclude that your ideas are invalidated, and it is not more ethical to use free software. ' Some seem to be convinced. But of course, they have no ethics, at least not outside the utilitarianism of John Stuart Mill.
We will continue to embrace people to restore ethics. They burn us to abandon it.
I totally agree, I just want to add that Elav's article alienates people who are approaching free software. Elav's confusion, in my opinion, confuses those who are coming to the community.
Free software is not a technical issue, it is political and ethical, it is about looking beyond software and seeing how it can affect our lives and how it can help us build a more just society while respecting freedom.
Many people are not aware that you have to have freedom when using software and the free software movement exists for precisely this reason.
I leave a video to clarify the ideas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvLJ2JotttM
if you have understood ...
Thanks for the comment. I respect what you say, only to add that indeed, I hate politics and therefore I do not use anything that in a certain way is doing it for a political issue. Thanks for continuing to read this blog.
Ah! But it is that politics involves us all and everything ... Non-action is an action itself, as Sartre said ...
And for the record, I tell you from love and respect. Politics (in its formality) can be very tiring. The problem is that it involves us in all aspects of our day to day (and that of others).
Good comment
Just clarify that this blog it belongs to everyone and it can contain opinions of any kind and of any person determined to write in it, there is no censorship (except if someone is disrespectful).
Salu2
I fully subscribe to your comment. And I especially liked "[...] let's not make a religion of that."
You lack a group at the beginning, the one of those who use Linux because they like it. Neither by the philosophy of the SL nor by those who use it to pretend. I started with a labor issue (feasibility of migrating to SL), and I loved it. That's why I use it. Because I like it period.
I was initially a GNU / Linux fanboy because of how fast Debian and Mandrake ran on my PC. Later, I began to investigate more about this topic, and currently I use it to play and program (regarding design, I start using my partition with Windows since there are not enough free alternatives for AutoCAD and I have already become too fond of the Adobe suite and CorelDraw).
With respect to the other free applications, I am gradually using them as replacement for the owners (Transmission instead of uTorrent, LibreOffice Write instead of MS Word, DIA instead of MS Visio, etc.).
Well, I hope I get a good job so I can get a new hard drive to work with virtual machines.
I am in size !!!
williansvi @ aringenieria02: ~ $ vrms
Non-free packages installed on engineering02
flashplayer-mozilla Macromedia Flash Player
rar Archiver for .rar files
Contrib packages installed on engineering02
virtualbox x86 virtualization solution - base binaries
virtualbox-dkms x86 virtualization solution - kernel module sources fo
virtualbox-qt x86 virtualization solution - Qt based user interface
Contrib packages with status other than installed on engineering02
flashplugin-nonfree (dei) Adobe Flash Player - browser plugin
2 non-free packages, 0.1% of 1885 installed packages.
4 contrib packages, 0.2% of 1885 installed packages.
For me, free software is precisely that, free to do what I want with my equipment and system without the need to ask someone for licenses or permissions
Freedom is using what is necessary at all times without annoying others.
Manjaro KDE and Win 8.1 in dual boot on AMD64bit, and Manjaro XFCE on Intel Dual Core 64bit.
and nothing bad happens to me.
Great we have Freenode #IRC GOOD BRO
I share the opinion, I use Debian, and it is necessary to use the wifi drivers 🙁
If I have a lap that requires them, what to do?
I also used Trisquel 100 free for a while and by means of a startup script I loaded the proprietary wifi modules to the kernel (But when I do that I know, YOU ARE NO LONGER 100% FREE)
that's why as you say ...
I USE LINUX BECAUSE I WANT ... IT IS NOT A RELIGION OR CANONICALLY I HAVE TO USE 100% FREE SOFTWARE to contribute to my community.
@ reepeecheep 6 May, 2015 11:24 AM
… .And it is necessary to use the wifi drivers 🙁 if I have a laptop that requires them, what to do?
What to do? change the wireless network card! 90% of the notebooks that I have disassembled, the wireless network cards go in a socket, you find out on the forums which card is without drama and you get one of that model.
Here is the list of supported and not supported:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_open-source_wireless_drivers
I leave an example of what free software can do:
http://www.malavida.com/noticias/informatica-solidaria-impulsada-por-linux-mint-y-un-voluntario-de-84-anos-005195
Then their fans boast saying that Linux is free ?, Most of the Linux software is private, respect is pure linuxeros kicking.
????? Precisely what is installed the least and proprietary software is to say I have my Debian and you can count on the fingers of one hand the proprietary software that I have not because I do not want to have more proprietary software but because I have not needed it but let's go of all I know the proprietary software they had, they were counted on the fingers of one hand and the one that had the most had about 12 through wine, in my time the wordperfect 8 at that time almost everyone used a word processor (at that time time in decline) but I was reluctant to change to word because that controlled it very well, but hey to what it was, that in reality little proprietary software is installed in GNU and not all the amount of software that you say that most is proprietary when it is the opposite.
Greeting.
And what about the time spent on the PC, by PC enthusiasts and the Internet in general? Windowseros, Linux users, etc. I include myself.
PC addiction takes its toll. Do not share with the family, nor realize accidents at home. Terrible.
I have been using GNU / Linux for about 12 or 13 years, I have a blog that will soon be 6 years old, I defend free software and I do not consider myself a hypocrite.
I am a Debian user and I use proprietary software, a matter of necessity, nothing to do with philosophies. But that does not mean that I defend free software, I do not see any contradiction in that, one thing is the ideal and another the need.
But also, I have never criticized those who only use proprietary software. Freedom and respect must be above any other consideration, I understand that sometimes you have no other option.
Although self-criticism is necessary, I don't see the GNU / LInux community in terms of hypocrisy. I think most of us are good people with good intentions and a philosophy that is difficult to carry 100%.
Greetings.
What philosophy are they talking about? They abandoned the principles and philosophy of Linux, their hypocrisy is so great, the evidence for the use of proprietary software falls into masochism. Someone said SYSTEMD ?, they betrayed their own principles and the philosophy of linux, therefore, the hypocrisy of linuxeros, is the real dimension.
I agree with your comment, but it seems to me that you, like many who have commented here, do not see the background of the post.
The post is not about calling everyone a hypocrite just because @elav likes that, but it is called a hypocrite (which is what they are) to that individual, more false than an anime ladder, who is the strip of purist, SL Taliban or whatever you want to call it, and that at any moment attacks anyone simply because that person (like you and many more) uses some proprietary software.
Do you want to see an example of what I say? Check the comments of this post https://blog.desdelinux.net/probando-visual-studio-code/ and you will see a lot of hypocrites like what @elav wanted to talk about here.
Greetings.
»That is why my dear readers that I ask you, say NO to hypocrisy. Let's use Operating Systems for pleasure, for fun, for whatever we want, but let's not make a religion out of it »
Say GNU / LInux, Windows, OSX ... And stop ... 🙂
Live and let live…
as it should be!
Imagine that you arrive at a Pro-Windows company, like in my case where you find engineers and developers who have no choice but to use Windows, and that they hire you to provide a security framework for their information, always from Windows, imagine the frustration knowing that they use a Windows Server instead of Linux, and that they only virtualize CentOS on a Windows server.
No matter the UNIX- what you use, the important thing is adapt and survive or die😛
Many confuse how RMS lives and what it preaches, he says that as long as there is no free option, you can use the private option as long as you generate the minimum profit.
I always promote Free Software on the owner, and I do not deny that I use a certain owner, however the joke is to avoid its use, for ethical and moral reasons, but many times it is necessary to use it, and if you have to do it, go ahead, but it must ensure that it is not used and fight for good free alternatives, rather than functionality is a question of ethics.
Not everything is black or white. There is nothing wrong with grays.
Freedom, that's what it's about.
I consider Stallman an extremist, and not all Linux users use Linux (don't tell me it's GNU / Linux, I say Linux) because they feel anti-systems and libertarian XD I think the title of the note is too yellowish, although it is true that those who are mentioned hypocrites in the note exist, not all users of the Linux universe are, I use Linux because the community, I like the virtual environment, how solid and flexible it can be at the same time.
And there is no shortage of software libertarian extremists who trample on the freedom of the other by preventing them or labeling them vandals by using closed software. Linux and its community can or should learn to live with closed environments, because in the Linux universe they exist and denying it is like trying to cover the sun with a finger.
Linux is precisely what the operating system is not, the operating system is called GNU and the / Linux is because of the kernel that it uses today because they did not achieve the Hurd terminal which is the one that would really belong to GNU if tomorrow they change the kernel to Hurd will you still call it linux? It is not for being a purist it is for calling things by their real name, it is like calling mac osx UNIX if it has a UNIX heart but the operating system is Mac OSX the same goes to GNU, I am not a purist at all I use windows and GNU a equal parts that then hears each one calls things as he wants I just say that the correct thing to refer to distributions is GNU + kernel because linux is up to android and your android you do not call linux, right? and uses the same heart.
that ingrained dogmatism of the Puritans, certainly fall into a sin, by not using 100 percent open source, however there are many users who use gnu / linux for pure pleasure and try other flavors in OS, regardless of whether they contain proprietary software or its source codes are not released.
They are false and hypocritical in all aspects of life. I am too comfortable with my Debian to worry about false prophets.
It is easier to live in the herd, after all we are herd animals, it is fear of leaving comfort, that is the problem we all say we need non-free but if we set out to live without proprietary software we would achieve it, the The problem is what is thought and for what? already everyone is full of proprietary software. On the other hand, talking about free software without being a user of Prabola or any other really free distro is not hypocrisy, it is rather to recognize one of the creators of the Gnu / linux project. although if they see it as hypocrisy aaahh it does not matter much we all have something of it.
Some bloggers don't learn from someone else's head, change "hypocritical" to "system deceiver" (I mean that unfortunate post on the Elementary OS blog) and you will have an audience that will want your head.
Is there something wrong with using free software as much as possible and requiring that files be shared in free formats? ... I am not trying to sell any images to anyone, it is my right to ask, but if someone does not want to respect my right then I have no choice another alternative than using closed formats and software so as not to hinder my work (and not waste my time in philosophical debates that will lead nowhere).
Does that make me a hypocrite? Now I can't support free software by consciously making use of proprietary software at times?
Elav please leave this blog, ashamed of you insulting people like us and on top of that you continue insulting in the comments, because according to your "it is your right to defend yourself." I have the right to comment because for that you have a comment box and if you don't like my comment you can delete it because it is your right.
Two things:
1- The example you put does not apply to the objective and the message behind this article.
2- What did the blog leave? But if I am one of the founders, how can I leave it?
Of course you have the right to comment and no, I will not delete your comment.
regards
Hello elav,
surely you have read my comment in elbinario.net. However, after reading your post several times, I will also comment on some things here. I think the article mixes, in my opinion, two things:
1) On the one hand you speak of the hypocrites. Those who impose something when they don't do it themselves. These types of people exist in all walks of life and I very much agree with what you say about them.
2) On the other hand, I do not agree at all with paragraphs like:
«There are many users who use GNU / Linux for things that go beyond philosophy, or wanting to be“ free ”. There are many users who use GNU / Linux because they feel like it, or because they like such an application or more like a desktop, and if we add to that the free and open, then better, right? "
Why don't I agree? Because I believe that undoubtedly free software has an ideology and a philosophy behind it that cannot and should not be separated. For me, the main difference between free and proprietary software is precisely that philosophy behind free software and the values that are promoted with its development. It has always seemed very incredible to me how people from different parts of the world and, in many cases without an economic reason behind, combine forces to create something in a totally altruistic and collaborative way. The values that emerge from this development are linked to development itself.
I agree that you can't always use free software these days, hopefully. But that does not give us the right to forget or ignore the philosophy behind all this. Then, being aware of our inconsistencies and within our possibilities, let's get involved to a greater or lesser degree. But let's not turn free software into just another product. Let's not separate things that have been united since they were created.
All the best
Sure friend. There is a philosophy and ideology behind it, but that does not mean that everyone who started using GNU / Linux does so for that reason. Let me explain: The first time I heard or read about Ubuntu, what I liked the most were 3 things:
1- That it was an OS that ran from a CD without having to install it to test it.
2- That it was free and they sent it to your house.
3- That it was something different.
At no time did I think that it was correct, moral and the best to use Ubuntu for being Free Software. As I comment in the article, those things came later, when I began to understand and enter this world. And of course, deep down I always had a penchant for Linux because in some way, I share the philosophy and ideology of Free Software.
Friend I share your opinion and it is not the first time that I see an article on the net of this kind of topic, I sincerely congratulate you because these articles bring a shower of offenses. And the final that gives the most win2, linux iOs etc. When you study to be a professional and go out to work, you are not thinking of turning an OS into a religion but in which role you perform better and in which you are paid better.
Because neither stalman and Gates are going to feed you.
I share your opinion.
There is no more freedom than being free to use whatever you want.
The debate opens ...
http://elbinario.net/2015/05/06/sobre-la-hipocresia-y-los-talibanes-en-gnulinux/
Now it turns out that DesdeLinux It's the same as MuyLinux, hehe
In the end, this type of thing only serves to generate 5 mb of logs compressed with 7z that is useless ..! Just not paying attention to them. The use of one thing or another only corresponds to something merely technical and ultimately "philosophical" and existential.
The biggest INCOHERENCE in the world of free software is that free software projects, including DEBIAN, are in English, discriminating the majority by income and place of birth since to learn English in countries with another language that translate all the series before broadcasting them television is very expensive: academies, schools in English with native teachers, ...
Apart from the fact that freedom also lies in respecting the freedom of others, not doing something that coerces or undermines the freedom of others, when the use of something not free means that others cannot use something free, you are not simply making use of of your freedom, but you are destroying the freedom of others: it happens when you develop software that only works with Oracle's java in a service that is mandatory for other people (for example, the website of the Social Security of Spain) or when creating software that only works in a payment operating system (WinSuite of the Spanish social security) or when teachers offer materials in non-free formats, being able to do so in free formats, etc.
Excuse me, but you're wrong big time. First, the native language of most planet-scale distros creators is precisely English, so it is natural and completely valid for them to use their native language to put information about their projects, so I can only state that your comment is such nonsense. Second, it's not like those communities discriminate against other languages or the populations that speak it, because if you look closely, there is plenty of documentation in many languages (in Debian there are about 70 languages officially supported), Wikis in several languages, and all that. , thanks to the fact that the same community translates them and they have access spirit to that information without discrimination of any kind. So your comment is not only invalid, but it is also completely wrong, not to mention that learning another language is not something that should be viewed as negative, but the opposite. All this without taking into account that Debian always makes continuous efforts to increase the number of supported languages and thus reach more people around the world.
More information here: https://www.debian.org/international/
About services using Java or people using proprietary software, that is another matter, where other reasons come into play, either for implementation, for user convenience, or simply because they are not interested in using SL.
Greetings.
Most are English-speaking, but it is because the richest countries are English-speaking, but that discriminates against other developers for example. They should use the Esperanto language instead of English, to see if the majority are still English speakers because non-English speakers are discriminated against.
The Esperanto language takes less than 6 months to learn to read and write, not difficult if you want to learn. The English language, like any other irregular, takes years and a great investment of time and money.
@Guillermo What would be the compelling reason why a person whose native language is English has to learn a new language (which by the way is not a global majority) to please others? With your answer you do not say anything, you only confirm that you do not have the slightest idea of what you are saying in that sense. Whether the developers were born in an Anglo-Saxon-speaking country, and whether that country is rich or not, has nothing to do with whether they practice language or race discrimination.
Does the Esperanto language take less than 6 months to learn the basics? That doesn't have anything to do with it either, I haven't done an exhaustive English course, nor have I gone to a private English school, and I can read and understand that language very well, and all because I have had the motivation to learn it, the same reason that you have wielded with Esperanto. That you do not know English? Well, go looking for a simple course and get ready to learn, it is never too late for it.
If someone wants to help with a translation of a distro into a certain language, all they have to do is join the project and get to work, nothing more.
"What would be the compelling reason for an English speaker to learn another language?" Does equality, non-discrimination, ... sound familiar to you? It is as if you told me what is the compelling reason for a white that there is no black slavery, do you have ethics?
«Does the Esperanto language take less than 6 months to learn the basics? That doesn't have to do with it either. Does efficiency, effectiveness, achieving more in less time, not wasting time sound familiar to you? Is it the same for you to learn something in 5 years as in 5 months?
Say better, that since you already know English, and you have had to go through their learning, you don't give a damn if others have to go through the same thing in order to get to work in international groups.
Another world is possible, and one can only wonder if each person subtracts or adds to achieve a better world.
Be careful, you have to be pragmatic, for now learn English to work in better jobs, but learn Esperanto and help change from within, little by little, as the tides win the beaches.
@Guillermo «" What would be the compelling reason for an English speaker to learn another language? " Does equality, non-discrimination, ... sound familiar to you? It is as if you told me what is the compelling reason for a white person that there is no black slavery, do you have ethics?
I wonder: Do you have a brain and some common sense?
“Does the Esperanto language take less than 6 months to learn the basics? That doesn't have to do with it either. ”Right? Does efficiency, effectiveness, achieving more in less time, not wasting time sound familiar to you? Is it the same for you to learn something in 5 years as in 5 months?
It is not the same, but that does not answer anything I have asked you, you just evade the question with a deformed and bottomless idea.
«Say better, since you already know English, and you have had to go through learning it, you don't give a damn if others have to go through the same thing in order to get to work in international groups.
Another world is possible, and one can only wonder if each person subtracts or adds to achieve a better world.
Be careful, you have to be pragmatic, for now learn English to work in better jobs, but learn Esperanto and help change from within, little by little, as the tides win the beaches. "
That I don't give a damn is YOU. Don't put words in my mouth, or ideas that I've never had. If you are what you speak Esperanto natively, and you think your language is the best, fine, but don't come to "paroli merdon" and say that there is discrimination in projects like Debian or any other, simply because English is used as a common language of communication.
I'm not a native of Esperanto, I don't even know Esperanto right now, I'm a failure of the educational system, like 99% of my generation without internet, who set out to teach us English without linguistic immersion and of course it was a resounding failure, and will currently discriminate to my children for not being able to learn English effortlessly, by linguistic immersion like the children of our politicians who support English as a working language in the EU but their children go to private schools in English with native teachers, total, it is 600 euros of nothing per month, something anyone can afford. In my work they only hire people who are bilingual, discriminating against all those whose parents cannot pay for language immersion or forcing them to watch thousands of hours of series in English to learn or work for the feudal lords of the UK and Ireland as waiters for serve them, and thus be able to learn that English that is imposed on them from above. Let's change the world, Esperanto already exists, the French rejected it as a language in the League of Nations in the 20s, now they regret it. It is time to change history for the future, NO to the imposition of foreign irregular languages, better, more egalitarian and just solutions exist: Esperanto. New course on Duolingo to learn it (for English speakers, for now).
There are lists in Spanish and other languages. Debian was founded by a German, its servers are in Sweden and Japan, and the lists often show Northern Europeans and Russians. There aren't that many native English speakers and it shows with the grammatical errors. Some of us make an effort to try to understand each other in a language.
It would be necessary to see how to vote to decide that Esperanto is the "chosen language" in English? would be the last straw, each one speaking their language? in the end no one could understand the vows and it would be a tower of Babel.
Regarding the post, I agree, I think that nobody cares or should care what one uses to be judging it (be careful with that of targeting ubuntu and debian nonfree, you fall into the same game). Knoppix, debian, and OpenOffice were recommended to me a long time ago, being busy with constant viruses, formatting, registry failures, activations, etc. It was a useful and objective recommendation rather than a philosophical judgment. The quality of the software was unquestionable that I couldn't resist continuing to use it.
Vote? Do those who are vote? Those who have already passed the filter, those who already know English. There is still much ignorance of Esperanto, many decades ignoring the existence of that language and lying about it (myths about whether it is dead, if it was a failure, ...). It would first take an information campaign, analyze the current and future pros and cons, and make decisions based on logic, economy, efficiency, etc. both present and future (not looking at the short term of those that already are, but of those that may come, for example from China and other emerging countries). By the way, there is a Chinese radio broadcasting all day in Esperanto.
I think that if I had to learn Esperanto, then I would also be discriminating against my native language. It seems to me that things should be as they are, what makes GNU / Linux reach everyone, without discrimination, are the translations into all possible languages, of all applications. That is where you find the equality you need to not discriminate against anyone.
Languages are not discriminated, people are discriminated. If there is a language that allows everyone to communicate in the shortest time and for the least money possible, then it is absurd to continue imposing an irregular language that is one against the other. Precisely what would be achieved with Esperanto is to allow everyone, with the maximum equality possible, to access the best jobs, including also allowing with maximum equality to collaborate for free with projects like Debian without having to go through the irregular language of specific countries. If you don't write your programs in English, they don't allow you to put them in Debian repos, and that is discrimination, they should allow them to be put into Esperanto and they will be translated into the rest, right now they discriminate against those who don't know English. You will say that otherwise they discriminate against those who do not know Esperanto, here comes the cost in time and money that it costs anyone to learn one or the other, and that English belongs to some while Esperanto belongs to nobody (and in turn is of all). It is similar to free standards and de facto but proprietary standards, we have all suffered with them (html for IE, .doc, ...)
Sorry, but I disagree. I consider myself a free software "evangelist". I feel more comfortable / happy inside when people tell me stories that have done well with free software, do I consider myself a purist? Not at all.
Since from a commercial point of view free software has disadvantages, I understand that non-free software is created on more than one occasion, and for this same reason I understand that it is used (I myself do it continuously), however, also It is true, I think that in more than one case they "go overboard" with privatizing the software.
Therefore, I do not believe the hypocrisy you were commenting on, and although I agree with everything else, if continuing like this implies that you award me that adjective, I will continue to do so with great pleasure.
A greeting.
I use the distro that I like, when I need it, I also use windows and I don't consider myself a traitor. Each system has its advantages and disadvantages, I never make excuses for why I use "something proprietary". It is difficult for a system to cover all the requirements of a user, well it is my point of view as a lawyer and engineer; I use different exclusive tools for each platform and even some that I have created myself. Yes, I promote GNU / Linux but not for the reasons of freedom, but for scalability and security. I do not agree on ALL things with Stallman, firstly because he is gringo and yuppie, secondly because he does not know the third world from which many Spanish-speaking Linux users come, imagine closing yourself off to globalization in a country that requires economic growth (it is suicide ). Well, not to prolong my comment, if it is true there is a lot of hypocrisy and of all kinds, like the linuxers who put a thousand excuses for using windows, you totally use it and what is the problem? Each user uses what they require, free or not. And if many do not like this, well go to a Mennonite society without internet, electricity, or computers.
I really like reading this blog, but I do not comment on this blog, but I liked your opinion, half. There are also users who use proprietary software for their own needs. There is a reason for free will, we can use whatever we want. I use my pirated W7 only to download my movies with the pirated IDM anyway (yes, they will come to recommend how much download manager, but the IDM is more useful to me, it also recognizes "almost" all the videos on the web, including the pron).
I use puppy linux with openbox, and it works great for me. It runs fast on my computer, and I'm happy with that distro. But it doesn't offer me what IDM offers me, that's why I use w7. Cheers!
Hello, greetings, the truth, I am a fervent admirer of linux, since I started using it in my Cirix c386 4mhz, in year 96 in a SLACKWARE 1.0.27 distro, (dated in 94) that took 4 HOURS to download, in a 9,6k modem, it had quite a few accessories, all free at that time, after +/- 1 month of fighting with it, all the free hours, I managed to put the X server online, which did not allow almost graphics, since I did not access the card drivers correctly, now about 25 years later I have 1 debian 7 distro online, with all the free / nonfree add-ons, and I still need to use »Guindows«, due to my work needs, (I am a mechanic, I have not yet found any "free" software for vehicle diagnosis, at the official service level).
All this talk comes, to be able to tell you, that if it is hypocritical to criticize the preferences of others in terms of soft, "how many of you installed a" freedos "to replace the command" two "or (false did you put the NDos of norton or the 4th) or did you install OS / 2 to remove Windows?
Be true to yourself, think about this, you will really be able to:
Without having to bring to the mouth of your Children, give away the fruit of your work?
You are purists, good !! It seems more than correct to me, then, un-install the Linux Kernel, devised by a Transfuga like Linus Torvald and install the Hurd, then you can claim with flags if you want.
You see, I love the way of working on the command line, I design, program and use command line programs, but nowadays, it is impossible to maintain that lifestyle in a modern work environment, in which people ask you for an appointment by «Whatsapp» or calls you by «Skipe,» to ask how your car is doing, as the same happens with free software or hardware, what is the use of my router having free firmware (it even has the sticker) then device drivers are proprietary and not provided?
PS: I write from the diagnostic computer, because my 8 had just been installed, it refuses to put the wifi online, after asking for the original drivers of the card at startup arranque
This blog post starts from an absurdity, and is from the premise that someone may be able to use 100% free software in all areas, this is impossible unless you spend all your time modifying each device that you are going to use, routers, mobile phones, smart TVs, etc. that use some type of software, even if it is free SW, most likely they use proprietary firmware to give them access to specific components and if not the kernel itself will include firmware for proprietary components, I don't think that every computer Stallman has the HURD kernel unless he has enough time to modify all the gadgets in his house.
There is the freedom to use what you please as well. I believe that promoting the ideals of free software and hardware raises awareness ...
Normally, people do not have options, they buy a computer and it comes with Windows or Mac and they think that is software and hardware and nothing more ...
But it is good to make people aware that proprietary software stagnates societies, science and development. Hence, in Europe there are no software patents and in the US there are. I'm not against patents that drive development either, but in terms of software it seems to me that a culture or age of information and computing should not be governed by a model in which people do not have information about the software they use and that others cannot develop or create similar versions or with the same functionalities.
It is not about not using proprietary software or hardware, it is about raising awareness that there is also free software and hardware, and promoting their use, for example in FLISOLs. We use free software (linux, bsd, etc) and free hardware (rasperry pi, arduino, RepRap) because it exists and we can, it is one more option.
On the other hand I think there should be more competition to Microsoft and Apple. With only two powers and Linux, there is little room for new developers, but I would like to see a big leap in computing outside of MS and Apple, these two companies no longer innovate, they have stagnated.
This post and many derived comments (read "ethics is a primitive concept") are truly hilarious. I question, already directed at this issue, the ethics of the author with an incendiary and truly mediocre post and that he understands me, I use the adjective in a descriptive way, without any intention of offending, because I myself have been mediocre on many occasions in a great diversity of chores.
Also a parable: What kind of people think that enslaved people (today there are multiple forms of slavery) should not be allowed to talk about freedoms?
I read the post and I agree, because of this type of hypocrites I stopped participating in forums because I got tired.
When reading the comments I realize that it takes a lot of reading comprehension
It has been quite difficult for me to do simple things in Linux like transferring documents to my cell phone. And as well as installing programs or using flash in linux. I have invested a lot of time and have gone from failure to failure trying to install a program or add-on for a Linux distribution. At the moment I am using linux out of necessity since I have not been able to buy a hard disk to install windows, I use it merely because it is not difficult to install programs, add add-ons and much less it is not necessary to even open the windows command line to install some program.
Using ubuntu I find that first I have to install a repository with very simple lines that are made with a vile copy paste.
And yet I have come across every problem that is difficult for me to describe and to solve those problems you have to look online, to see if someone else has already passed the problem to them and see how they solved it.
More than a month ago they broke into my home to rob, they stripped me of the most precious thing I had, which was my computer. It is worth mentioning that I have just graduated and have not found a job.
I dusted off an old machine that I write on and due to performance problems with ubuntu I decided to use a distro called puppy linux.
With which I have struggled a lot but it is comforting to see that in the package manager someone has already made the effort to make the installation of a program with the ending .pet easier.
The biggest challenge for those of us who want to use free equipment daily is that we have to learn again. While not everything, most of the simple things.
And I know that many do not have the patience to learn something new. I am among those, but by necessity of not having cash for a hard drive in which to install windows again.
After at least two months. Having searched for how to get pepper flash non free plugin, how to install Jdownloader, how to transfer files to my android cell phone, how to install Java, how to install another browser, I feel like I can do without windows. But I know that in a day not too distant, I will need to return to windows for some proprietary software like autocad.
Unless I get another clue on how to execute it, desde linux.
What I am, I still comment on using unix, I want my people to understand but they prefer windows ... Regarding my use of Unix, I have always used Fedora, but I have always used Google Chrome and I do not think it is bad, I mean, free will ... now I use Chromium xD (I don't know how free it is) but hey, each one with his own, I still listen to spotify, mp3, my email is gmail ... unfortunately I use facebook ... and blehh .. I still want to grow a Stallman-style beard hahahahaha
The freedom that is talked about in Linux, is a freedom to use, download, modify…. etc to everyone's taste and for whatever interest, I understand that one is also free to use other software for whatever reasons and that is why it is not necessary to crucify him.
I think that those who use free software 50% are also betting on this type of software to the extent of their possibilities, or needs ...
I defend and use free software if I can, and when not, then no. I talk to people about the benefits of this software but I am not a fan like stallman (nor do I aspire to it), and therefore I do not consider this a hypocritical position, I recognize the advantages of free software but also the barriers that make it almost impossible not to use another type of soft.
see, that's why I don't smoke!
In the end it all comes down to each one who uses the system they want and ... fuck more! cunt!
Whenever they stop taking advantage!
Absolutely agree. I use what I want and for that reason I am not better or worse than anyone. I always try to use free software, but there are things that you can't, like the graphics on my Nvidia or the Steam games, and that's not why it's going to give me a break. Any problem?
This is an excellent blog, I have learned a lot here ... personally I really appreciate the substantial content. Cheers
You've summed it up well: Live and let (others) live. I've been with free software for about 15 years, I've tried a score of different Linux distros with their respective forks and versions, and I've also tried BSD and OpenBSD. I still love the idea of free software and will support it in my own way, that is, from time to time a donation and publicity among those friends and acquaintances who are interested in it. But I don't owe anybody explanations about what software I use and why I do it or not, because it's my business.
When I really started to use Linux, it was because the equipment I had at that time, did not measure up to Windows Vista, so I started using Ubuntu or let's generalize, I started using »Linux».
Over the years, I got used to it and became fond of it, so much so that today I even feel uncomfortable using Windows, honestly. That does not remove the fact that I cannot use something proprietary, such as the drivers for an nVidia card that I have, because unfortunately, the performance I get is much better than using the free driver, and I bought this card for that reason, because I needed an acceleration Stronger 3D than the integrated one on the motherboard.
Nowadays, I use Linux, and with non-free things, like mp3 music. Unfortunately, most of the songs I have are in that format and I don't have the time to convert to .ogg. This in my case, does not cause me any kind of inconvenience or problem, I have never been a Linux evangelist, if I have told some colleagues that viruses are more absent here and those things, but I am not convincing them to come here, it is their decision whether they want to or not.
As for the article, people like that, very few on this planet.
My advice, everyone use your system as you please, as it was created for that, to facilitate your task. If you have a lot of money and you want your proprietary software, go ahead, if you like messing around, go ahead. In my case, I already mentioned why I am on Linux, and it will be very difficult for me to return to Windows on my personal computer.
ps: I have a virtualized Windows for special cases only.
I feel like many made the jump to Linux for Windows Vista. I also had a rather mediocre PC and it did not support Windows very well. So I went to Ubuntu, back in version 11.10 I think. And I got used to it, until I also lost my taste for Windows. Right now, going back to Windows 7 feels strange to me.
I use what I like and period, I use linux, I use LOffice but I also have the MSoffice with wine and what?
I am not a preacher nor is free software a religion.
everyone who uses what they see fit! even if someone needs a program like ProTools or Autocad I just tell them to use windows. I think you have to stop fucking, I use linux or whatever he wants and the other one who uses what he wants is his life.
I do not agree at all with the article. It seems unnecessary to me to insult those who so euphorically defend free software, whether they do it hypocritically or not. They are defending what we really should all wear.
Proprietary software is by definition something wrong, a dangerous trap, and much more so if it is promoted by those who move the gears of this corrupt system. Those who have an agenda that includes a very dark future for humanity.
I accept that I use proprietary software but I am aware that, in effect, it is wrong and I am favoring those same who spy on us and do what they want with our information. That information will serve an as yet unknown purpose. I congratulate those who use and promote 100% free software because they are on the right track.
Ahhhh every time I reread the article I find it confusing, provocative, and above all I find it sterile. What happened to terminal Fridays, it is as contradictory as the attitudes it criticizes, first it complains of people who at times or at all times speak and pontificate about free software without actually using totally free distributions and then it talks about those who use distributions totally free who exaggerate until they are religious, what is the contribution of showing this point of view? What is there hypocrisy, I would say rather there is a contradiction and yet I find it more in the same article, you start with some and end with others, so not to mention the word free software so as not to be hypocritical since we use flash, it is similar to use linux because it is I feel like it and I like to say I use free software even though I am far from understanding Richar Stalman, I think Elav that you become the other side of the same coin.
I used linux at first because it was different, now that it is popular I don't like it that much anymore.
It's not true, I like Linux because you can do everything in it and I like to learn.
I don't use linux distros because they are open source. I use them because I like them. I'm using Elementary OS because I like it better than Windows 8. Period. I can not say more simply.
I just leave the following reflection, how nice it would be if thousands of people worked for free to give you a house, car, connectivity, food, how beautiful, right? Well, that communist philosophy has Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, in the disaster, and the countries that are wanting to adopt that position see how all their indicators begin to fall.
The same happens with software, I am sure that the vast majority of purists are not real developers, they are consumers of free software, but how would you feel if you were a developer and had to give away all your work? Of course free software has evolved the way in which software businesses are done and now it is offered as a service, free in distribution but paid to add functionalities, such as the electronic stores of google, windows, and apple. However, the FSF wants and wants these big companies to end, something that honestly does not seem very "free of thought" to me, much less putting thousands of workers out of work.
Of course, software has its merits, but I personally use it because I like it, not because I strongly agree with a philosophy as "closed" as that of "free" software.
Where do you get that Free Software is comparable to communism?
The 4 freedoms of the SL guarantee that anyone can make money with their software, and even make use of other people's projects to make more money, while on the other hand, the proprietary one encourages monopoly, which is the antithesis of capitalism.
Where do you get that those you disparagingly call purists are not developers?
Have you done surveys or did the tarot or a crystal ball tell you?
Where do you get that SL developers "have" (as if it were an obligation) to give away their work?
Giving your work without expecting payment is a personal decision, sometimes it is due to gratitude for having used the code of others without paying or for mere altruism, few things more noble and less objectionable I can imagine.
Read the GPL to see how it even encourages development fees.
Where do you get that the FSF wants the private companies to end?
As far as I have read, what they hope, without putting a gun to anyone's head, is that they stop using their position of power as developers to abuse users / other developers.
Surely if MS tomorrow passed all its software to the GPL, what those "purists" would do (I include myself only because they called me here and in other worse ways) would be to congratulate them and not ask that it disappear.
And it is that in which head is it possible that asking that there are no monopolies or captive clients based on abusive licenses is having a closed mind?
But allowing the abuse of a few (who for no reason want to give up their lifestyle in pursuit of global improvement) is to have an open mind.
«Come on Mr. Police, don't have such a closed mind, accept a little corruption in your life. Run over two children, yes, but do not restrict my freedom to drive over whoever I want. " <-Sarcasm
Regardless of hypocrisy, open source, closed or proprietary ... the inclusion as dependencies in library programs that imply geolocation, when not directly and "openly", collection of system user data is something that affects practically all variants of Linux, including less polluted ones like… Trisquel.
Eg: Zeitgeist (in its different versions), Geoclue, Geoclue2, etc ... Whoopsie (in Unity), etc.
If we already take a look inside Firefox (about: config), for example, it is to cry (or laugh).
Well I feel this half off-topic.
@Angel May 19, 2015 4:37 PM
I was saying it in a previous comment ... but you have said it with the exact words ... is that the masses are so innocent, not to realize where the business is? ... spy and collect data to sell it ... in the absence of not being able to charge for the code, then you will pay by giving up your privacy ... that will not change ... human beings are that damn.
And the list goes on ... akonadi strigi baloo etc etc etc
@anonymous
I agree, but it is worth making a note, things like Baloo do not spy or put your privacy at risk, for the simple fact that none of the information they collect leaves your computer, they are not sent to any server or computer on your local network o Internet, the information they index can only be accessed by you.
@Staff 21 May, 2015 6:28 PM
$ eix baloo
* kde-base / baloo
Available versions: (4) 4.14.3 (4 / 4.14) ^ t
{aqua debug minimal}
Home Page: http://www.kde.org/
Description: Next generation of the Nepomuk project
He is the heir of Nepomuk .... does Nepomuk tell you something?
@anonymous
I have Nepomuk very present, but it seems that you do not know that neither Baloo now, nor Nepomuk before, communicate in any way outside of your team.
Yes, index, order and search among your files, we are going to be like a personal and PRIVATE agenda, commands like du also search, and organize the results, but nobody says they spy, because neither the searches nor the results returned are sent outside the computer .
The data it indexes can only be seen by you.
Your searches are not sent to the internet.
It is not even shared between different users on the same computer.
How then could I spy?
If I am overlooking something, please tell me how it is a privacy risk, or how it sends some type of information outside my computer and I immediately uninstall it. 🙂
@Staff 21 May, 2015 11:10 PM
The indexing mechanism is built into kdelibs for the purpose so that it cannot be removed or compiled on its own, so I stopped using kde and that was a long time ago.
By default it is active within kdelibs and it cannot be removed or deactivated at compile time, it can only be deactivated at runtime from a hidden file in the user's home ... sufficient reasons to be paranoid.
I remember reading an email where the main developer was asked why he did not leave an option to deactivate it at compile time ... and the answer was something like ... because I do not feel like it!
What I am going to do is that people confuse deactivating with uninstalling ... you cannot uninstall just deactivate and above all not by root but by a wild user where any application can activate it even remotely ... I don't want to deactivate it, I don't i want on my pc!
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/NEPOMUK
Initially, it was developed under the NEPOMUK Project and had a cost of 17 million euros, of which 11,5 million were donated by the European Union.
I don't think they changed their minds, they just changed the name from nepomuk to baloo.
In any case, I will never ever return to KDE and this is the main reason.
As Staff said, I do not think that Baloo / Nepomuk is a problem for our privacy on the net, only on our team ... you know, in case someone curious is able to sit with our open session.
@anonymous
I could act as the devil's advocate, defending the right of the developer to carry his project as he wants, but the truth is I understand your discontent, I also do not like much that there are things that cannot be deactivated or uninstalled (Go if I was angry when I came across distros that do not allow you to get out of Pulseaudio, not to mention the scandal with systemd), nor the bad attitudes on the part of the developers.
So, although the reasons are subjective, they are respectable and I think it's good that you publish your opinion.
But my point is that there is no technical possibility of Baloo spying, since he does not send information to anyone (the code is auditable in case there are doubts), so the accusations of espionage are out of place.
@Staff May 22, 2015 10:02 AM
I didn't say that baloo spies on you himself, he does his job well, but everything in KDE goes hand in hand with dbus as a communication tool between applications… .I recently read that they are already wanting to encrypt dbus communications … .The circle keeps closing, you can audit all the code and you won't find anything wrong… the bad thing comes when you combine different subsystems… .everything becomes uncontrollable.
Try to run KDE without dbus for example, but hey as you said, the choice is personal and I have already chosen… it is called openbox and I get along wonderfully.
Greetings and I appreciate the great work of this page and its collaborators, that although many times we do not have the same points of view, we do not disrespect each other.
Very good reflection!
After reading this article I have not gone back to desdelinux with windows, many times I did it due to the need in my company to have windows for the administration of a whole paraphernalia of applications and services mounted on something about Microsoft, since I am one of those people who have self-respect I did something that I had within my Notes like a TO:DO and I reinstalled my machine with GNU/Linux and installed a virtual machine on top of it with the necessary things for when a problem occurs in Windows that I cannot solve from here, thanks @elav for getting me back on track.
Look, I'll tell you that I use linux, I generally use linux more however right now I am commenting on you from windwos. In other words, I am in a proprietary system and I don't feel bad about that, I dedicate myself more to making internet links and my lap only has Linux which works for me perfectly but being honest I also make designs, and no Linux software covers my need For corel or illustrator, I know that purists will say there is inkscape, krita, gimp, xaraxtreme, the truth is that none of them give me, because I send my work to make up in .crd or .ai to printers they are worth a damn the free software they work with that period, and they are also programs that are very easy to use to create designs, so I always say that although we like linux, in many things it will not be enough at least for me no, this pc has dual boot , windows 8 and deepin which I use when I am going to be more in the browser, chatting, and some things in gimp but when things get serious I go to windows and use illustrator, and if many are bothered by no means, that's how they are things I do depend on wind ows.
When reading this opinion a question came to mind. What if you love free software, specifically Linux: you have Linux for breakfast, Linux for lunch, Linux for dinner and you dream of Linux, but when it comes to working you can't with Linux anymore?
A case that occurs to me would be that of a programmer: he can use Linux for all his activities, yes, but when they ask him for a job, the huge and most important clause says that any program he does must run or be made for M $ Win . How to swim against that current ???
Very good article!! I use Debian because I get tired of windows and hacking it, something that 95% do in Argentina and what Linux gives you is the freedom to choose what you want (I did not put GNU, because it is another philosophy, that although the programs are free, Stallman would like us to be 100% free, which in today's everyday world is almost impossible).
And that freedom that it gives you, in my case Debian, is to be free to add the non-free repositories to install third-party software not 100% free or to put the nouveau open source drivers for my nvidia card or to choose the proprietary ones of the company , which I use because they work better and it is also my right to be able to have and use them because I bought the VGA and if there were drivers provided by the company for my Creative CA0132 sound card, I would also use them, because the enormous effort made by the developers from alsa sadly they don't work 100 with these devices.
In those things we also have the freedom to choose if we want to use proprietary things or free things, it is our right.
You won't be waiting for him to end up like this man, right? I respect him but I don't agree with him.
Excellent article! I hope that is how we all think and especially when it comes to issues such as politics
The truth ... freedom is being able to do whatever you want with your system, because once installed it is yours ... so you know whether or not you install closed binaries, because it is your problem, not Stallman's or Torvalds'.