[Cialug] Apple and Intel

[Theron Conrey]

Nice thoughts. Since I got tagged "rabid" I'll respond.  I don't think 
anyone wants to mob anyone with anything.   And I understand your 
perspective.  FOSS isn't where linux came from, it's where linux is.   
The compiler you use, the C library, the editors, the debugger, the 
assembler, the majority  of the OS.  The Linux kernel itself is GPLed.  
The issue isn't to shove it down anyone's throat.  This issue is one of 
"lest we forget".  People can easily make references to Stallman and 
rightly so as the most outspoken proponent of FOSS.  It IS a politial 
message. 

We see rights chipped away at everyday, and don't complain, as long as 
it "whatever is being affected just works."  Can't use a dvr to skip 
commercials?  That's ok cause TiVO is Linux and it's great!  and 
consumers aren't educated enough to understand that there are freedoms 
and rights (fair use act?!?) that are getting stomped all over.  one of 
our LUG members has a tagline that I copied and enjoy tremendously that 
sums up the danger that "Open Source" over Free Software 
implies...digging through papers.......... and obviously can't find 
now.  Something to the sound of "Freedoms/Rights being slowly eroded not 
by grand force...."

I think it's great that more and more folks are turning to Linux.  
Without the GPL and FOSS however it wouldn't exist today. Nor without 
it, will it be any different than any propriatary OS.  I don't use Linux 
just because it's stable.  I could use solaris for that.  I don't use 
Linux just because it dosen't cost me money.  I've donated regularly to 
different projects, and could use solaris 10 x86 if I wanted.  I don't 
use linux cause it's cool.  (It is however)  I use linux because I have 
the capacity to maintain my freedoms that other OS's hope that I'll not 
realize I'm missing.  Open Source may draw users to Linux.  When 
whatever great new other propriatary Operating System comes out and is 
*cooler* or *better* than Linux, the  user understanding thier freedoms 
is what will keep them.

Theron

Off to enjoy beer and brats....... Hope to see you all there...





Travis Beaty wrote:

>Hello all.
>
>As I quickly don my asbestos underwear and assure my room is sufficiently 
>flame resistant, by two cents worth ...
>
>I personally feel that if anyone keeps Linux from being "the" desktop 
>operating system, it will be the Stallmanist fanatics out there.  Do I use 
>free software?  Well, yes, I do.  Do I contribute to it?  Yes, I do what I 
>can.  Do I believe that anyone who has Netscape, Acrobat Reader, Real Player, 
>or Sun's Java VM on their Linux system should be met at the front door by a 
>mob with a horse, a rope, shotguns and pitchforks?   Absolutely not.
>
>It seems at times the most vocal users of Linux say: "Only FOSS approved 
>applications can be used with this operating system, lest ye be plunged into 
>the depths of Hell."  I see little difference between saying that, and saying 
>"Only Microsoft Approved software may be used with Windows <whatever>."  One 
>can have a political, implied EULA that will scare folks away just as quickly 
>as a printed one coming out of Redmond.
>
>When I talk to people about trying Linux out, I make it a point not to mention 
>Open Source software, vendor lock, and other wonderful buzzwords.  I just 
>give them a Live CD, or show them my laptop, and say, "This is Linux.  It's 
>better.  See for yourself."  Linux can sell itself.
>
>If we sit there and tell people "Use Linux because it is free software, and 
>Windows isn't," then we'll win over some geeks and a couple of blonds 
>interested in the free beer.  If we tell people "Use Linux because it is 
>better than Windows," and we demonstrate that it is, then we'll get converts.  
>Grandma Jones doesn't give a rat's fuzzy bung if Firefox is free software, as 
>long as she can use it to sell her knitting on eBay.
>
>The same way with emphasizing that users can get the source code to program X.  
>It seems (and I'm just as much guilty of this as the next person) that as 
>"advanced" users we forget that while source code is wonderful to us, other 
>people don't even know what "source code" is.  It's the "common" user, the 
>one who thinks that C++ code is an indication that someone has been drinking 
>and computing, that we need to be aiming for.
>
>So yes, I do agree that open source, free software is important to Linux.  
>That is its legacy, that is how it got to where it is.  I believe that as the 
>"gurus," the backbone of the cause, we should support free software every 
>chance we get.  However, we need to keep in mind that at the end of the day, 
>the battle is won by Linux's performance, stability, power, security, and 
>ability to be used and enjoyed by the common folk, not because Application X 
>has The Stallman Seal of Approval.
>
>Bottom line:  Most people don't care if its open source.  They don't care if 
>they can get the source code.  They care if it works, and works better than 
>the competitor.
>
>Again, just my two cents.  I got my asbestos undies on now, so I guess I'll 
>push the send button.
>
>Have a wonderful day,
>Travis.
>
>
>On Wednesday 08 June 2005 12:20 pm, chris129 at cs.iastate.edu wrote:
>  
>
>>I think I should have emphasized my sentence.  I didn't mean "selling" to
>>get emphasis, I meant "Apple" to get emphasis.  Proprietary software isn't
>>the devil, Apple on the other hand....  That said, I greatly prefer Free
>>software; but there's some great proprietary stuff too (it just tends to be
>>more temporal).
>>    
>>
>_______________________________________________
>Cialug mailing list
>Cialug at cialug.org
>http://cialug.org/mailman/listinfo/cialug
>
>  
>