Canonical asks desktop users to "pay what you think Ubuntu is worth"

What's that, some kind of cult?

 

Yep cult of common sense.......better of running legal software and not pirated. Piracy is bad for business ain't it?

 

There are other alternatives, showing only the free/open source one is somewhat cultist.

 

These institutions can hardly afford or run their hardware let alone paid software so free/open source is the only way unless you are willing to chip in and finance them The so called other alternatives have a formidable task force of awareness unlike the open/free source so they truly don't need help and these places were on the alternatives to start with and needed freedom.

Btw, IBM, HP and 95% of the supercomps follow the same cult of open/free source.

 

So, would you show other alternatives if you were dealing with institutions that could afford them?

BTW, I believe big companies like IBM and HP do a considerable rational analysis of all alternatives before deciding what to employ or support, and to what extent. If IBM/HP were "cultist", they wouldn't sell/support machines with Windows and other proprietary software like they do.

 

Why those arguments should matter from a technological point of view? This kind of reasoning looks political/ideological, or, as I prefer to call it, somewhat cultist.

And you said they were on illegal pirated software, which shouldn't be considered "alternative" at all (imo).

 

The point here is to make it work and work for free and with a hope of sustenance, today thats possible via Open source so if thats cultist, then I am all for many more cults like that, just don't do a David Koresh

 

I understand your point. But I think that a hardline for such "point", if widespread, have the potential to hurt better technology and its adoption in some ways. If I understood correctly, you don't care about proprietary paid software, even if it has better technology (and even if such better technology proves to have a better "cost-benefit" too). You will negate or omit such info as much as possible. That's where you start to depart from legit tech enthusiasm imo.

 

Closed source and proprietary better than open source.......how? So IBM and others are foolish to adapt to open source. Coca Cola uses Open ERP, guess they are misguided. Cost benefit in PAID? How? I don't really have to omit or negate anything, the so called limited and mostly inferior closed source folks spend most of their resources peddling, bribing and coercing IT departments to use their junk, they need to as what they sell is mediocrity with hype. The folks who come to us have been through all that and are looking for a viable sustainable alternative. Our job is to provide that and make it work. We sustain through the services we sell, not the software. Open source enables and empowers countless numbers, at any given time we can have thousands working on a project unlike closed source which has far limited resources and there is no way for scrutiny of the code itself.

By declaring that proprietary and closed are better than open shows your level of awareness and bias and therefore there is no point in this argument.

 

I wasn't arguing that "closed is better than open". I was just trying to see what would be your position under such possible condition.

But as you showed now, you don't think that such condition may happen (or that such condition is possible). You think that such condition is impossible/doesn't happen. Period. But closed can be better than open in all aspects sometimes. Here are some interesting arguments that I want you to analyse:

~~~ Removed uncredited, full copy & paste from "Imran's personal blog" ~~~

See it at its source: http://ipeerbhai.wordpress.com/2012/06/10/debunking-closed-source-software-harm/

 

Sounds like classic M$ pitch done by their sales rep....the HARMS of Open Source is hilarious to say the least, I guess the military, NSA, stock exchange and others should now adapt closed source enmasse


~~~ Removed full copy & paste of article content.

See it at this link: http://linux.omnipotent.net/article.php?article_id=7042&page=-1

 

All those entities you cited adopt a mix of solutions under different conditions. They are not part of the FOSS cult. They adopt open source software and closed source proprietary software too (which for NSA and the military, I know for sure, isn't really "closed source"... ). Go research this if you want.

Edited: And the rest of your edited post (starting at "The Risks of Closed Source Computing") doesn't touch the arguments of my previous post. And I actually read all of it.

 

Anyone including NSA, Google are signatory to FOSS conduct so yes, their creation maybe closed, but the patches they implement on core components remain open and shared, thats what makes OPEN SOURCE the best. No wonder 95% of supercomps use Open source and not closed and proprietary however superior they maybe

 

You arguments about Open source being harmful is a fallacy in itself, there can't be any counterpoint if you say 2+2=8 can it?

 

Like you, I don't doubt that, in some cases, open source alternatives can be better or more interesting to adopt than their closed source counterparts. But, unlike you, I don't extrapolate this to every case, everywhere, everytime - because this is obviously wrong.

 

I don't think so. Those arguments aren't fallacious. 2+2=8? What a bad analogy.

 

I just want to make a small comment in this part that I forgot to make in previous posts. When we started this argument I was thinking that you were doing some kind of voluntary pro-FOSS work. That would classify as "somewhat cultist" in my opinion. Now I see that you have other legit interests ($$$$$$$$).

 

Of course, my legit interest is bridging the digital divide and not creating it by telling impoverished folks that price of knowledge is $$$$, instead let knowledge be open, free and far superior and let the $$$$ come from services offered with the power of knowledge. We offer training free but all services have a fee which goes to sustain our cause. Anything wrong with that?

So leave us poor folks with inferior, harmful Open source and enjoy the lonely exclusivity of being suckered with a mediocre high priced closed source proprietary product.

 

Actually I was being kind, its more like 2+2=200.

 

That "harms of open source" is a load of crap. I'd take the time to defeat each point but it would take more energy than i care to expend on any forum post.

The first and last points may be the stupidest things I've read on this forum (well, not actually but they're up there).

 

Umm wow. Zealous much guys?

Open or closed, it's still just software. How about we rate its quality by how well it actually works, as opposed to whatever absurd license it's under?

 

Licensing defines software in a lot of ways. Linux's success is largely in part to its licensing - the ability to easily fork and merge code.

I'm not a zealous OSS person - I think closed software is fine and I think some software being closed can be beneficial. I think the points made about OSS being "bad" were, again, the stupidest things I've read on wilders (or up there).

 

FWIW I was speaking more to linuxforall and Wild Hunter. I do think that software quality should not be judged by licensing though; e.g. Windows 7 has a rather obnoxious per-computer licensing system, but the software itself is of excellent quality.

Re FOSS being harmful to innovation, I would like to see some citations. Like, from actual studies, assuming there have been any.

 

I agree, let it be the choice for consumers in the end and we see that the direction is Open source now, especially corporate. Ironically the adaption rate in cases where awareness is nil is taking time but Canonical is changing all that thankfully. Where people have no money to pay, open source is the only way.

 

Agreed. This is a technology forum after all.