History of Linux?
in [Linux Help]
|
Prev: Obama supporters have apparently infiltrated Google groups and blocked ISP's sending Obama negatives
Next: A new reader? Welcome to alt.os.linux, read this first if you're new here (FAQ)
From: birre on 21 Apr 2008 11:06 On 2008-02-23 11:49, dennis(a)home wrote: > > Free software without source code has no advantage over purchased stuff > other than being free. > I don't have to pay for M$ office so I guess that makes office OK? > Sorry for digging up this 2 months old thing, but I saw it now, and it clearly show that you don't know what free is. How many times have you heard "free as in freedom, not as in free beer" without getting it. Software that has no source code is only free for the one that wrote it. It has nothing to do with pay, just try to understand, it's not that hard if you try. software for free is not the same as free software. The free means that you don't have to make a deal with the software vendor to not share the program, not try to figure out how it works, not try to change it, and so on. When you install ONE single software that if non free, you are no longer free to do what you like with the computer, you can't clone it to a backup computer, or copy to your very best friend, and have no control over what you own. Nobody here is 100% Stallmanists , not touching any proprietary software, but the goal must be to go that way, since that is best for all of us users. (YES, EVEN FOR YOU!!) /bb
From: dennis on 22 Apr 2008 16:41 "birre" <spamtrap(a)norsborg.net> wrote in message news:fuiahl$pkt$1(a)news.al.sw.ericsson.se... > On 2008-02-23 11:49, dennis(a)home wrote: >> > >> Free software without source code has no advantage over purchased stuff >> other than being free. >> I don't have to pay for M$ office so I guess that makes office OK? >> > > Sorry for digging up this 2 months old thing, but I saw it now, and it > clearly > show that you don't know what free is. > > How many times have you heard "free as in freedom, not as in free beer" > without > getting it. > > Software that has no source code is only free for the one that wrote it. > It has nothing to do with pay, just try to understand, it's not that hard > if you try. software for free is not the same as free software. > > The free means that you don't have to make a deal with the software vendor > to > not share the program, not try to figure out how it works, not try to > change it, > and so on. When you install ONE single software that if non free, you are > no longer free to do what you like with the computer, you can't clone it > to a backup computer, or copy to your very best friend, > and have no control over what you own. > > Nobody here is 100% Stallmanists , not touching any proprietary software, > but > the goal must be to go that way, since that is best for all of us users. > (YES, EVEN FOR YOU!!) > > /bb OH I understand what free software is, however you appear not to. Just ask anyone in the street what free software is and you will get the correct answer and it wont be yours.
From: Christopher Hunter on 23 Apr 2008 01:34 Ohmster wrote: > I am not saying that MS Office is "bad" It's appalling. There are deliberate compatibility flaws built in to each successive version, in an effort to /force/ upgrades. It /used/ to be the /de/ /facto/ standard in Europe too, but wise companies and individuals have mostly moved to Open Office. C.
From: Varghese Mathew on 23 Apr 2008 06:18 Christopher Hunter wrote: > Ohmster wrote: > >> I am not saying that MS Office is "bad" > > It's appalling. There are deliberate compatibility flaws built in to each > successive version, in an effort to /force/ upgrades. It /used/ to be > the /de/ /facto/ standard in Europe too, but wise companies and individuals > have mostly moved to Open Office. > > C. > http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/microsoft/archives/133050.asp See the first comment on that page.. /varghese
From: Varghese Mathew on 23 Apr 2008 06:19
dennis(a)home wrote: > > > "birre" <spamtrap(a)norsborg.net> wrote in message > news:fuiahl$pkt$1(a)news.al.sw.ericsson.se... >> On 2008-02-23 11:49, dennis(a)home wrote: >>> >> >>> Free software without source code has no advantage over purchased >>> stuff other than being free. >>> I don't have to pay for M$ office so I guess that makes office OK? >>> >> >> Sorry for digging up this 2 months old thing, but I saw it now, and it >> clearly >> show that you don't know what free is. >> >> How many times have you heard "free as in freedom, not as in free >> beer" without >> getting it. >> >> Software that has no source code is only free for the one that wrote it. >> It has nothing to do with pay, just try to understand, it's not that >> hard if you try. software for free is not the same as free software. >> >> The free means that you don't have to make a deal with the software >> vendor to >> not share the program, not try to figure out how it works, not try to >> change it, >> and so on. When you install ONE single software that if non free, you >> are no longer free to do what you like with the computer, you can't >> clone it to a backup computer, or copy to your very best friend, >> and have no control over what you own. >> >> Nobody here is 100% Stallmanists , not touching any proprietary >> software, but >> the goal must be to go that way, since that is best for all of us users. >> (YES, EVEN FOR YOU!!) >> >> /bb > > OH I understand what free software is, however you appear not to. > Just ask anyone in the street what free software is and you will get the > correct answer and it wont be yours. How about, you pick Richard Stallman from the street ? Believe me, you'll could get whipped :D /varghese |