>Me, I just don't care about proprietary software. It's not "evil" or "immoral," it just doesn't matter. I think that Open Source can do better, and I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is by working on Open Source, but it's not a crusade – it's just a superior way of working together and generating code.
>It's superior because it's a lot more fun and because it makes cooperation much easier (no silly NDA's or artificial barriers to innovation like in a proprietary setting), and I think Open Source is the right thing to do the same way I believe science is better than alchemy. Like science, Open Source allows people to build on a solid base of previous knowledge, without some silly hiding.
>But I don't think you need to think that alchemy is "evil."
>It's not "evil" or "immoral"
>it's not a crusade
Me, I just don't care about proprietary software. It's not "evil" or "immoral," it just doesn't matter...
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
cad.softwareinsider.com
twitter.com
I used to be a freetard until I started programming for a living. It's easy to be a stallman worshipper when you're a NEET.
Still waiting for the superior opensource CAD alternative.
>I used to be a freetard until I started programming for a living. It's easy to be a stallman worshipper when you're a NEET.
I have a job as an embedded dev and i am still am """"freetard""""
You are wrong
...
>I have a job as an embedded dev and i am still am """"freetard""""
Is your work open source too?
Its not because i am bound by my company not to release my source code. That is out of my control
But at home i try to keep all the software i use FOSS
>Its not because i am bound by my company not to release my source code. That is out of my control
Then you are only an hypocrite.
>Then you are only an hypocrite
I try to go by the FOSS principles wherever possible, if not i dont cry about it
I get over it
>Torvalds is a realist exercising pragmatism unlike RMS and his acolytes
boohoo big fucking news there faggot.
>it's just a superior way
Says enough
>he doesn't have an irrationally strong affinity for his unpractical ideals which cannot be achieved on a large scale
You're doing it wrong.
>I try to go by the FOSS principles wherever possible,
No you don't. Writing propietary software is EVIL by your standards. There is very little room for compromise there. If you really believe in FOSS your (paid) work should be FOSS too.
>B-But muh food on the table
You chose your philosphy, not me.
Im waiting for WORKING CAD alternative.
I tried using LibreCAD or FreeCAD. They are so shit it hurts.
freecad, blender
ive used solidworks, and didnt like it as much.
>unpractical ideals which cannot be achieved on a large scale
Not that guy but FOSS ideals are applicable in the real world, they're not unpractical
Look at this game
>en.wikipedia.org
Read up on its history
>guys want to make a game
>kickstarter to fund game
>hire pros to program it
>make it FOSS
Credible bait. Sad.
I mean economic incentives clearly discourage being open source.
>I tried using LibreCAD or FreeCAD. They are so shit it hurts.
Just watching FreeCAD videos on youtube makes me wretch. The UI is ghastly, but maybe the actule kernel is not that bad.
>I mean economic incentives clearly discourage being open source.
Is it any wonder that freetard apologist are made up only of impressionable autistic virgins or autistic communist jews?
>No you don't. Writing propietary software is EVIL by your standards.
Bees are evil too, they sting and sting hurt
Why not kill all of them
Oh i forgot, pollination! A necessary evil they are then
>If you really believe in FOSS your (paid) work should be FOSS too.
Except it should not be because i am writing code for my company, what they do with it isn't my business, they could trash the whole project the day i complete it and i dont give a fuck because i am being given money in exchange of writing software. This is my choice that i work in exchange for money, which gives my company the right to do whatever they want to do with my code
>tl;dr They own my code, i dont. Its their choice
Blender is actually good though
inb4 Autodesk shills
Maybe, but it's not CAD
What a faggot
You sound like a vegetarian who works in a slaughterhouse.
Keep rationalizing, buddy.
>I mean economic incentives clearly discourage being open source.
Not exactly true
Not true at all actually
If a group of people want a piece of software written they'd just collaborate money to hire programmers to make it for them
Now if the group was big enough (say 20,000 people) and everybody would give just a 50 cents for the cause, that still collects a more than enough 10,000$ for the development
Their individual contribution is negligible, so it makes sense to just release the code so that everyone can use the code
So in short
>software got written
>nobody had to pay any significant amount of money
>the developer hired for writing the software goes home with a fat wallet
Your saint stallman says that the real evil is making propriatery software, worse then stealing is for example you don't have food. You're a disgrace to your cult.
And? How does ones food preference (or any preference in that matter) relate to his occupation? If i wanted to eat vegetarian food only, its my choice, why would it matter to me if i worked in a slaughterhouse?
I couldn't see your point
Freetards either go full ape defending their half assed ideals or go into mental gymnastics to get a job, pathetic.
"A horse is actually good though"
"Maybe, but it's not a tractor"
>Your saint stallman says that the real evil is making propriatery software
Thats the thing, i dont make proprietary software, i simple make software and leave it up to company to decide if they want to make it FOSS or keep it proprietary, not my fault they dont want to release the source code, my job was writing the code
I still don't get it, this is clearly a licensing issue, it seems to me, from what I can gather on things he said in the past, that free software as a philosophy gets in the way of efficient/effective development, by going out of its way to scrutinize the use of said free piece of software in order to make sure that it stays "free" and doesn't become part of a proprietary software/system, right? I mean, does free software even have a defined development workflow? practically, is it any different than Open Source software?
There are a lot of cases where the source code could be considered a "trade secret" and giving it away means you shoot yourself in the foot and kiss goodbye to your multi (million | billion ) market. Sure there are other situations where FOSS make economic sense, but they're vastly outnumbered by cases where it doesn't.
Torvalds is pragmatic. Not a bad mindset to have.
You wouldn't nromally work in a sloughterhouse if you stronglyly oppose killing animals for food and/or profit.
>I did nothing wrong, I'm just listening to my superiors from the SS.
>Meat is murder
>I murder animals
>I don't see anything wrong with this
Not sure if bait or autism.
>Thats the thing, i dont make proprietary software, i simple make software and leave it up to company to decide if they want to make it FOSS or keep it proprietary
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH How is it fucking possible to be this delusional?
>owner of land requests builder to build a building
>builder builds building
>owner pays him
>owner of the building decides to turn the building in a brothel
>"It's the builders fault the building isn't being used as a hotel"
First of all being a vegetarian has nothing to do with being nice to animals, it's the act of eating vegetarian food only.
Simple as that
>says "open source" instead of "free software"
But what if the developer decides to make it closed source, give free copies to backers and sells it for $5 per copy?
Let's say I'm selling a proprietary software that I wrote
>Totally ebil
What if I'm an employee for the company who makes the software?
>Totally fine
Let's just say you turn a blind eye for that big check every month, ok.
You evil proprietary cock sucker.
But in your retarded example the owner didn't know. You know.
No I don't and even if I do it's none of my business
The software I write in my time, for my use is open source because I am the owner and I want it to be
Yes because the company owns the software, not you so the blame is on them
>Yes because the company owns the software, not you so the blame is on them
Says the proprietary cuck.
>The software I write in my time, for my use is open source because I am the owner and I want it to be
So only the sofwtare on company time is evil?
BTW, you could choose not to work at that evil company and get a job in a FOSS company instead.
No, FOSS is much like the USB. When multiple companies all need the same functionality they cooperate with each other with a FOSS project.
They're shit because GPL and GNU/developer retardation is preventing them from supporting common formats and therefore actually having users
Proprietary software itself isn't evil, but the companies that produce it often are.
>I try to go by the FOSS principles wherever possible
So are you implying it's impossible to go FOSS and still earn a living like your current job enables you?
>When multiple companies all need the same functionality they cooperate with each other with a FOSS project.
That is one case when FOSS makes sense.
It also makes sense when you do it to sell more hardware. But FOSS for the sake of FOSS is rare.
the problem is that you can never say for sure if the software is evil or not
No man, you're missing the point, no software is "evil", no company is evil either, stallman just blows everything out of proportion. It's just that I leave it up to my company what they do with my code (since they own it). I keep my personal code FOSS because I own it. It's as simple as that
It's the same thing as when most people call themselves law abiding citizens when they break minor laws all the time.
>implying you can't get paid for FLOSS
>no software is "evil"
>no company is evil either
wow, get KEKED
This is probably one of the most intelligent freetards I have ever encountered
>I keep my personal code FOSS because I own it.
>Realeses his software as FOSS
>Thinks he owns it
I don't think you know how FOSS works mate.
lol what a retard, nobody says proprietary software is evil, what a retarded moralistic argument. we just say it's against the user's interests for obvious and well thought out reasons from the point of view of a company, but still against the user's interests.
>we just say it's against the user's interests
Oh yeah, back when users where programmer such a statement made sense.
>It's the same thing as when most people call themselves law abiding citizens when they break minor laws all the time.
Exactly, call themselves, but they are not. Just like you call yourself a "retard" but you're just a halfling lier and a hypocrite.
>It's the same thing as when most people call themselves law abiding citizens when they break minor laws all the time.
Except that in this analogy law abiding people are commiting rape and murder.
>nobody says proprietary software is evil
gnuman would like a word with you
The one thing Stallman fanatics always get me with is their use of the word "free" .
Free is already a word and has a very specific meaning but instead of creating a new word (libre or whatever the fuck) they just "overload" free with a new meaning and expect everyone to use it that way
Stallman has a fixation with words and terminology (look at the GNU/Linux charade).
Maybe it's an autistic thing, I don't know, but it really gets on my nerves.
Free has always meant more than just monetarily free. Free man, as in not a slave, has been in usage for longer than you realize kid. BTW, you need to be over 18 to browse this site.
It's also in the user's interests to you know actually have good software.
Nice ad hominem
Ask anyone what a free product is
Words have many meanings, each for a specific case
You don't ask the guy with the free cheese sample for the recipe
But that really is the problem with English as a language, not precise enough
Pragmatism means you can never have the moral high ground.
>ad hominem
You didn't even use that correctly, so thanks for proving my point.
>Words have many meanings
. . . and now you just destroyed your own argument.
he absolutely destroyed stallman with this and all the fucking neet gnu/freetard losers in this board
>>>/hs english class/
Ad hominem = personal attack without an argument fggggt
COPYLEFT HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH.
Just
Nah, it just bugs him that Linux is really only the Kernel. The majority of the shit in the OS was made by Stallman, but Linus jacked it, took credit, and was even arrogant enough to name it after himself. It has less to do with him being autistic, and more to do with him wanting credit for his work.
As much as I admire Stillman and hell a smidgen of respect for Linus. These guys didn't graduate with economics background; it's nice to proclaim textbook ideas about open source but that doesn't correspond well to the economic realities of our civilization. In b4 red hat (talk to me when they start making Google sized money)
(An operating system) != (a distribution). Linux is an operating system. By my definition, an operating system is that software which provides and limits access to hardware resources on a computer. That definition applies whereever you see Linux in use. However, Linux is usually distributed with a collection of utilities and applications to make it easily configurable as a desktop system, a server, a development box, or a graphics workstation, or whatever the user needs. In such a configuration, we have a Linux (based) distribution. Therein lies your strongest argument for the unwieldy title 'GNU/Linux' (when said bundled software is largely from the FSF). Go bug the distribution makers on that one. Take your beef to Red Hat, Mandrake, and Slackware. At least there you have an argument. Linux alone is an operating system that can be used in various applications without any GNU software whatsoever. Embedded applications come to mind as an obvious example.
Thanks for listening.
it's a religion, a sect, it doesn't have to make any sense, they just have to repeat the mantra.
"Joe is free as in freedom" can be rewritten as "Joe has freedom".
But "gimp is free as in freedom" cannot be paraphrased to "gimp has freedom", it makes no sense.
Software doesn't have freedom, it is never "free as in freedom". That specific meaning of "free" only applies to entities which have will (persons, animals, angels, etc.).
That's not what it means at all, kiddo. Ad hominem != insults. Ad hominems are is a logical fallacy (as in the reason behind them is not solid) that occurs when someone attempts to discredit the speaker rather and therefore claim that the speaker must be incorrect as a result.
This is a fallacy because even if the speaker, such as yourself, is under-aged and sucks cock, again, such as yourself, that doesn't automatically make your statement wrong.
That's not what I did however. I pointed out why your argument was wrong, then I pointed out that you were a child, or at least have intelligence comparable to one.
(An operating system) != (a distribution). Linux is an operating system. By my definition, an operating system is that software which provides and limits access to hardware resources on a computer. That definition applies whereever you see Linux in use. However, Linux is usually distributed with a collection of utilities and applications to make it easily configurable as a desktop system, a server, a development box, or a graphics workstation, or whatever the user needs. In such a configuration, we have a Linux (based) distribution. Therein lies your strongest argument for the unwieldy title 'GNU/Linux' (when said bundled software is largely from the FSF). Go bug the distribution makers on that one. Take your beef to Red Hat, Mandrake, and Slackware. At least there you have an argument. Linux alone is an operating system that can be used in various applications without any GNU software whatsoever. Embedded applications come to mind as an obvious example.
Thanks for listening.
>Without Linus and Linux the GPL and FSF would have faded into obscurity.
False. If Linus had not made the kernel then someone else would have. Stallman was even working on one of his own at the time.
Your pastas are stale, but it would be rude not to at least poke at it anyway.
>By my definition
That's where this argument dies. OS already has a definition and that definition is not OS = kernel.
...
DELET THIS
Didn't Linus also work for transmeta, would you call him a hypocrite as well?
What's your point? Torvalds is all for the open source, not free, software movement
;^)))
>Didn't Linus also work for transmeta, would you call him a hypocrite as well?
No, he is a pragmatist. The old bearded hacker is the one calling all proprietary software evil.
Wait I thought we were talking about open source not free software
op is trying to show how retarded rms radical shit is
Fuck off retard
This is old news faggot, everyone here knows what Torvalds thinks about free software, FSF and Stallman
He doesn't think of software in ethical good/bad terms but about it's development model
lol 20,000 people with a stake in an application?
Have you ever heard of death by committee? The design/software would be fucking atrocious
So this whole argument was actually about what constitutes a "freetard", which is up to interpretation, and the fact that the dude should never refer to himself as one unless he wants to run in circles with hard headed children for two hours.
>each for a specific case
If you are gonna quote something dont leave out important things
Free used to describe a product = free of charge
However, using free to describe a person wouldnt mean they are free of charge
>I'm an anti-porn activist but I also direct porn videos.
>I'm a militant anarcho-socialist, but I'm a fortune 500 CEO.
>I work for the US department of defense, and also I'm an ISIS recruiter.
>I'm an atheist, but I'm also the pope.
Nice to see Linus finally figured out that its waste of time to argue with JewStain about his 'crusade'. Linus has said that the GPL is a poorly written legal document, maybe his time would be better spent making better license that does the same thing as the GPL but in better legal language.
sorry, i didn't read the open source part
>cherry picking
>The definition only applies the way I want it to, when I want it to.
Lol, no. That's not the way it works.
>freetard commie nonsense
Get a job you lazy NEETs.
>
Screenshotting pasta
>searching rbt.asia/g/ for the deleted reply and responding to the post number