[BadVista Advocate] "Free" software

Fri May 4 13:16:15 EDT 2007

See how well free things can benefit everyone?

Jacob

> Just wondering, the architecture blue prints of houses are free and
> open right? But yet architects make a fortune out of it?
>
> 2007/5/4, Lam YongXian <news at adolflam.com>:
>>
>> > "I, personally, don't support non-Free software."
>> >
>> > Well, then you're missing out on a lot of great stuff.  How about
>> games?
>> > I
>> > enjoy computer games, as do millions of other people.   Those
>> companies
>> > invest millions in them, do you expect them to give everything away?
>> >
>> > "With cars and houses, I'm free to take them apart, do my own repairs
>> or
>> > modifications (or pay someone else to do it for me), sell them, give
>> them
>> > away, whatever. So why would I have a problem with cars or houses?"
>> >
>> > Do you really do your own car repairs and modifications?  Modern cars
>> are
>> > very complex and you need specialized training to work on each model.
>> > Plus
>> > they now come with a lot of proprietary hardware, and yes, software.
>> So I
>> > am betting you do actually pay for non-free software in devices like
>> your
>> > car and cell phone.
>> >
>> > "But I do have a problem with non-Free software, because its users are
>> > prevented from studying/fixing/modifying the source code (or hiring
>> > someone
>> > else to do it for them). And there are obvious security and privacy
>> > implications, when you run software you're intentionally prevented
>> from
>> > fully understanding."
>> >
>> > There are many proprietary products in the world.  Companies invest a
>> lot
>> > in
>> > creating them, of course they need to protect their intellectual
>> property.
>> > In many cases, giving away the source code would allow competitors to
>> > steal
>> > your ideas.  Don't you think competition is a good thing?
>> >
>> > Obviously we have a big difference in philosophy.  I don't want to be
>> a
>> > chef, mechanic, electrician, cook, etc., etc.  Have you heard of
>> division
>> > of
>> > labor?  I specialize in one thing, and trade my efforts for those of
>> other
>> > experts.  I pay people to do my taxes, car work, lawn mowing, house
>> > cleaning, etc., thus leaving time for me to enjoy my life.  Even
>> though I
>> > am
>> > a programmer, I don't want to recompile my O/S!  I had to specialize
>> in
>> > one
>> > area of programming to become an expert, I can't also know about video
>> > drivers, security, media players, etc.  I can't imagine that more than
>> a
>> > handful of people really do that.  How many Windows users can we
>> convert
>> > by
>> > saying "Hey, you can modify and recompile your operating system!"  I
>> think
>> > most people just want to buy something that works.
>> >
>> > "The world will always need new software and people to write, maintain
>> and
>> > improve it. Those are services for which people/businesses are willing
>> to
>> > pay."
>> >
>> > Ok, so are you just saying that software should be freely
>> distributable
>> > and
>> > include all source code, but companies can still charge for it?
>> That's
>> > better, but there is still the problem of intellectual property.  I
>> don't
>> > see why just the software industry is being singled out for this
>> > treatment.
>> > The computer you're using has lots of chips in it with proprietary and
>> > non-free software.  I don't think Intel and AMD are going to give you
>> > their
>> > code and trade secrets.
>> >
>> > I don't see the appeal of your message to 99% of the population who
>> use
>> > computers.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Advocate mailing list
>> > Advocate at badvista.org
>> > http://badvista.fsf.org/mailman/listinfo/advocate
>> >
>>
>> It depends on your specialty. If you are a programmer, you would want
>> your
>> software to be 'open' to you. You want to know how it works, because you
>> know how you want it to work like. If you are a automobile specialist,
>> you
>> would want to built your own car, or at least have a chance to modify
>> your
>> own. You do not bother about free programs because, it is not your
>> specialty to hack programs, and you are not interested, and you can't.
>>
>> But it doesn't mean you shouldn't submit to huge companies who claim to
>> provide 'solution' for you, just because everyone do, and that it is
>> norm.
>> You can find a friend who you trust, a programmer, who love hacking
>> software, to modify programs for you. When he needs a better car, you
>> can
>> modify it for him. This is base on trust, not so-called intellectual
>> rights.
>>
>> In this way, we build an society based on freedom and trust, and less on
>> materialism and rights. This is good for the society. You don't call the
>> forest-saver campaign unrealistic because it doesn't benefit the
>> economy,
>> do you? Of cause, to build this is a long term goal. We have to start
>> today, slowly yet steadily. Now starting with software. No great changes
>> happens overnight.
>>
>> You seems to be speaking at the 'end-user' point of view of the
>> proprietary-master. "They invest so much", you said yourself that they
>> Invested. Their goal and effort were not to make software better, but to
>> get back what they put into their investment. This is unacceptable in
>> the
>> programmer's world. It is like trading human-labors in the worker's
>> world.
>> Learn to change your point of view, or at least realize that their are
>> more than just one 'I own, you use'.
>>
>> ---
>> Lam YongXian
>> Adolflam.com
>>
>> FSF member #5279
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Advocate mailing list
>> Advocate at badvista.org
>> http://badvista.fsf.org/mailman/listinfo/advocate
>>
>
>
> --
> Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
> See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
> 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
>
> _______________________________________________
> Advocate mailing list
> Advocate at badvista.org
> http://badvista.fsf.org/mailman/listinfo/advocate
>