Open Source Elitists

[RaptorJesus]

Anyone ever met or consider themselves one? I'm talking about people that are basically like, "If it's not open source, it's crap." without giving other software a fair shake.

I didn't know they existed until I met a real live one recently. I myself use a Mac desktop with a hodgepodge of software both GNU and retail alike. I run OS X but I basically just use what works best when it comes to apps. And I use a Zune so I have a virtualbox install of XP.

This guy's constantly "EVERYTHING SHOULD BE OPENSOURCE!". For example, he thinks GIMP is a more superior program than Photoshop (gimp is nice, but it's no photoshop) simply because it has a GNU license with barely any actual experience. Just goes to show you fanboyism exists even in the opensource world I guess even though you wouldn't expect it there.

[SteveGuzzi]

wherever opinions exist, stupid opinions also exist.

[HibiscusKazeneko]

Some people just look for excuses to be snobs.
The End User License Agreement (the clause that makes it illegal to modify commercial software, hardware and the like) is all but unenforceable, so the argument for open source is mostly null and void.
I'm no good with computer programming (I barely know the basic command line), so I'm not really one to talk.

[RaptorJesus]

At 5/7/10 10:26 PM, HibiscusKazeneko wrote: Some people just look for excuses to be snobs.
The End User License Agreement (the clause that makes it illegal to modify commercial software, hardware and the like) is all but unenforceable, so the argument for open source is mostly null and void.
I'm no good with computer programming (I barely know the basic command line), so I'm not really one to talk.

I really think one can't very well exist without the other.. There's a lot of overlap in the programmers I think. Plus the open source world provides a great environment for people to make something great that might otherwise not have happened. While the retail world can recruit the best of such individuals and others to make truly amazing things and make a career out of it.

I think we can all take a page from Shareware's beginnings when the programs could just be downloaded and then you pay what you feel like.. (Read Masters of Doom) When people can get something free, they will rarely if ever, pay for it. Demos/trial versions/serials basically saved Shareware.

[thenewbies]

I use open source applications whenever I can, but some things you can't replace. Like, I don't know, antivirus or games. I find more advantages in open source than in closed source, but I still use both happily.

The "purists" just anger me. People like Richard Stallman, who won't even use Firefox just because it has non-free branding.

[RaptorJesus]

At 5/7/10 11:25 PM, thenewbies wrote: I use open source applications whenever I can, but some things you can't replace. Like, I don't know, antivirus or games. I find more advantages in open source than in closed source, but I still use both happily.

I assume you use Windows if you need opensource Antivirus give ClamWin a try. Not a Windows user but it seems a good one.

The "purists" just anger me. People like Richard Stallman, who won't even use Firefox just because it has non-free branding.

lol, "only a sith deals in absolutes..."

[thenewbies]

At 5/7/10 11:33 PM, mrgreg846 wrote:

At 5/7/10 11:25 PM, thenewbies wrote: I use open source applications whenever I can, but some things you can't replace. Like, I don't know, antivirus or games. I find more advantages in open source than in closed source, but I still use both happily.

I assume you use Windows if you need opensource Antivirus give ClamWin a try. Not a Windows user but it seems a good one.

Dualbooting. Mostly Ubuntu. I use NOD32 for both. Opensource antivirus is just shit, I don't know why anyone would bother.

The "purists" just anger me. People like Richard Stallman, who won't even use Firefox just because it has non-free branding.

lol, "only a sith deals in absolutes..."

Debian refused to use the Firefox branding and had a huge fight with Mozilla, so they renamed Firefox to Iceweasel.

There are things open source does well, and there are things that it doesn't do well.

[OwnageGiy223]

At 5/7/10 10:17 PM, mrgreg846 wrote: Mac

Zune

I see the problem.

[RaptorJesus]

At 5/7/10 11:38 PM, thenewbies wrote:

I assume you use Windows if you need opensource Antivirus give ClamWin a try. Not a Windows user but it seems a good one.

Dualbooting. Mostly Ubuntu. I use NOD32 for both. Opensource antivirus is just shit, I don't know why anyone would bother.

That's what I thought, I always recommend that one to people though because it's the only free open one I know of.

The "purists" just anger me. People like Richard Stallman, who won't even use Firefox just because it has non-free branding.

lol, "only a sith deals in absolutes..."

Debian refused to use the Firefox branding and had a huge fight with Mozilla, so they renamed Firefox to Iceweasel.

There are things open source does well, and there are things that it doesn't do well.

I'm curious about this 'branding' issue. Where's the issue with this? Do you have any good links about it?

[Skwurll]

I've been using Ubuntu for about 6 months now, I don't consider open-source to be superior or inferior, I use whatever software best fits my needs. Although most of it IS open-source.

[thenewbies]

At 5/7/10 11:43 PM, mrgreg846 wrote:

Debian refused to use the Firefox branding and had a huge fight with Mozilla, so they renamed Firefox to Iceweasel.

There are things open source does well, and there are things that it doesn't do well.

I'm curious about this 'branding' issue. Where's the issue with this? Do you have any good links about it?

Okay, so. The Firefox "brand" would be the logo and the name. They've been trademarked by Mozilla Corporation. The project that makes Firefox source code is the Mozilla Foundation. The Foundation is completely open source, but the Corporation owns complete trademark rights over the logo and the name Firefox. This becomes a problem for OSs that rely on complete open source.

Debian is a Linux distro that encourages using pure open source, and by default, included Thunderbird and Firefox. Because the trademark wasn't free use, they got pissed. Debian modded both, and Mozilla disapproved of them doing so with the Corporation's trademarks. Fight ensues. Debian solves the issue by rebranding Firefox as Iceweasel and Thunderbird as Icedove. I think IW and ID are runs as separate projects now.

Open source fussing caused all this.

[RaptorJesus]

At 5/7/10 11:53 PM, thenewbies wrote: I think IW and ID are runs as separate projects now.

Open source fussing caused all this.

Wow, that sounds really counterproductive. Another funny thing I forgot to mention is I've never seen this guy completely get off of Windows (as much as he talks shit about it). Like right now his Ubuntu install doesn't support his soundcard and he has no ACPI support, so he's still dual-booting. Yet still has the gall to talk down MacOS and Windows just because no GNU license essentially.

Before I got a Mac, I at least had a good working system with FreeBSD and later Gentoo on it that supported all my hardware perfect for about 6-7 years I used exclusively (before that it was the bad old days of using Windows). So I at least have a little perspective of what it's actually like in these different environments.

[thenewbies]

At 5/8/10 12:28 AM, mrgreg846 wrote: Wow, that sounds really counterproductive. Another funny thing I forgot to mention is I've never seen this guy completely get off of Windows (as much as he talks shit about it). Like right now his Ubuntu install doesn't support his soundcard and he has no ACPI support, so he's still dual-booting. Yet still has the gall to talk down MacOS and Windows just because no GNU license essentially.

Before I got a Mac, I at least had a good working system with FreeBSD and later Gentoo on it that supported all my hardware perfect for about 6-7 years I used exclusively (before that it was the bad old days of using Windows). So I at least have a little perspective of what it's actually like in these different environments.

Macs do happen to be based on FreeBSD, so the file hierarchy is similar. I mean, the GPL does provide more freedom, but barely any practical freedoms. Would I give a friend an installer or would I tell him to download it because the EULA prevents me from giving the installer to him? It's such a minor difference, it doesn't even matter. I don't program and I don't mod, so that "freedom" is useless to me. The only useful freedom would be that open source is free as in beer.

[dELtaluca]

At 5/8/10 10:32 AM, 111122223188 wrote: Open source software is often crap because people often make it to their own taste as opposed to making it generic. A lot of open source software is fine, but that problem never exists with closed source software.

Closed source software is often crap because when bugs are found they can only be reported, and it is left to the small group of people writing the software to fix them aswell as only having updates usually over very large periods of time wheras open source, bugs can be fixed by anyone capable of fixing them, so they tend to get fixed a lot faster.

[Psychopath]

So your buddy would prefer MS Paint over Flash?

[Psychopath]

At 5/8/10 10:57 AM, 111122223188 wrote:

At 5/8/10 10:53 AM, phsychopath wrote: So your buddy would prefer MS Paint over Flash?

MS Paint is not animation software,

Sure it is; a series of pictures that sequence with each other made in MS Paint + any movie making software that supports photos = animation.

[Cordyceps]

Then why is Linux better than Windows?

[Psychopath]

Actually allow me to correct myself; a series of pictures that sequence with each other made in MS Paint = animation.

[Psychopath]

At 5/8/10 11:14 AM, 111122223188 wrote:

At 5/8/10 11:12 AM, Digital-Terror wrote: Then why is Linux better than Windows?

Both are awful, so is Mac OS, DOS is what you want.

Preferences!

[Peaceblossom]

I've never been all high-and-mighty elitist about it, but I do support and appreciate open source projects. I think it's pretty cool that large projects (ie. operating systems) have been made freely available. It was nice to have a fully-functional OS on my computer the day I bought it. The only cost to me was $0.25 for a CD.

[goofleberries]

At 5/7/10 10:19 PM, SteveGuzzi wrote: wherever opinions exist, stupid opinions also exist.

hurr durr

[blah569]

Linux is not an operating system. It's a kernel that operating systems use. I prefer open source anytime to closed source projects.

[thenewbies]

At 5/8/10 10:32 AM, 111122223188 wrote: Open source software is often crap because people often make it to their own taste as opposed to making it generic. A lot of open source software is fine, but that problem never exists with closed source software.

I coughed.

[RaptorJesus]

At 5/8/10 11:52 AM, blah569 wrote: Linux is not an operating system. It's a kernel that operating systems use. I prefer open source anytime to closed source projects.

Would you go out of your way to use the Open Source alternative even if the retail software is better? (considering the software is within your buying range/money no object) This behavior makes no sense to me. Unless you truly truly couldn't afford say $20 for something that does so much more, and is more dependable. Again, not saying this is always the case since the GNU programs sometimes are really better, but if this were the case...

[REDSPADES]

You use a Zune, you are not an elitist, you are a retard.

[thenewbies]

At 5/11/10 10:47 PM, mrgreg846 wrote:

At 5/8/10 11:52 AM, blah569 wrote: Linux is not an operating system. It's a kernel that operating systems use. I prefer open source anytime to closed source projects.

Would you go out of your way to use the Open Source alternative even if the retail software is better?

I would do that sometimes. Especially if the functionality the closed source program are barely even useful to me. Why the fuck do I need a clone tool? I just patch up photos manually, the old fashioned way.

Price is another consideration. I never bother myself with buying software. The only money I spend is on food and sex.

And stability and bugs. Either get a program that does two things right all the time, or get a program that does 10 things, but only completes 2% of it.

[RaptorJesus]

At 5/11/10 10:52 PM, thenewbies wrote: I would do that sometimes. Especially if the functionality the closed source program are barely even useful to me. Why the fuck do I need a clone tool? I just patch up photos manually, the old fashioned way.

Yeah, forgot to mention I mean a signifigant difference in abilities. Obviously no sense in paying for software if the benefits aren't worth it. But they defnitely can be.

Price is another consideration. I never bother myself with buying software. The only money I spend is on food and sex.

Or you've just never have had a situation where there's something you need to do that there's no Open Source app that does it (or can't do it near well enough). But if you're pirating the retail stuff just because you don't want to pay that's just wrong.

[Cordyceps]

At 5/11/10 10:47 PM, mrgreg846 wrote: Unless you truly truly couldn't afford say $20 for something that does so much more, and is more dependable.

Holy shit. Where in the fuck are you getting your Windows install discs?!

[RaptorJesus]

At 5/11/10 11:01 PM, Digital-Terror wrote:

At 5/11/10 10:47 PM, mrgreg846 wrote: Unless you truly truly couldn't afford say $20 for something that does so much more, and is more dependable.

Holy shit. Where in the fuck are you getting your Windows install discs?!

The same place you saw the words 'Windows install discs' in my sentence I guess.. I thought it was pretty clear I meant some kind of general $20 software app. Maybe a Utility of some kind, or a Multimedia App...