Re: Lets talk about GUI and sound libraries


Bill Atkins wrote:

You mentioned earlier that you use free software because you're able to
"modify it" and not because it's distributed free of charge. I think
this is baloney. How often have you had to modify a free software
package?

It's not just about modification. I have spent over a year haggling
with a closed-source vendor's support staff to find a critical bug that
was causing daily server shutdowns, when if I'd had the source code I
could have found the bug myself in a day.

If it was simply to fix a bug, ask yourself if that bug would
have been fixed more easily by a company than by a user

see above

- or whether
that bug would have been there at all.

see above

If Linux and OS X cost the same amount of money,
which would you use?

For my desktop, Linux. I can't stand all the slick, useless crap that
commercial OS vendors pile on top of the bare bones. I can't even stand
the GUI crap that Fedora piles on.

I have no experience with OSX as a server, but Linux would certainly
have a lower total cost than Windows as a server, even if Linux sticker
price was much higher.

Lots of people claim that free software
wins because of freedom, but when you get right down to it, they just
don't feel like paying for software.

Many people actually enjoy being part (even an inconsequential part) of
a community that's working together to create a body of useful work.
And many of us are so tired of living in a world where we're constantly
blitzed by corporate culture that we would rather deal with a few raw
edges if it means we can crawl out into the fresh air a little bit.


People have trouble seeing the costs of software because software isn't
something you can hold in your hand, like, say, a piece of steak. Had
RMS launched a "free steak" movement, he would have gotten nowhere.

Many food coops exist. It's essentially the same -- I trade what I can
produce for what you can produce. The intangible nature of software
just multiplies what we receive in relation to what we can give.

But the fact is that making solid
software costs money.

No, it costs time. They are equivalent in some contexts, but not all.

They put up with shoddy
implementations (e.g. Ruby's interpreter is notoriously slow, as it
runs progams directly off the parse tree. Why is this accepted?
Because it's free. No one would pay money for such a
bizarrely-implemented interpreter)

Please. Nobody went to Ruby because it was free. There were already
tons of free options available. They went to Ruby because they believed
Rails would cut down on their implementation time. True, no one would
have tried Rails if it cost what commercial Web application frameworks
cost. And that would be a shame for all of us, because whether you like
Rails or not, it has definitely contributed ideas to the field, which
would almost surely have been lost if its makers had tried to sell them
as closed source. (Unless you believe in the Market Fairy, who ensures
that good ideas always win.)

Perhaps I'm generalizing here - perhaps there
are more people in the free software movement than I imagine who are
actually in it for the "freedom."

Take 5 minutes to look into this matter on the web.

In my own experience, though, most
people would not choose Linux if it cost money

"Most" is probably accurate, but a significant number of people do pay
for it.

It is the lack of upfront cost
of Linux that keeps people using it - and ironically costs them much
more in wasted time.

Most people who use Linux at home start by replacing a commercial OS
they've already paid for. So clearly that has nothing to do with
up-front cost. As for businesses, there is rational reason to believe
that Linux has a lower TCO -- though that is of course disputed.

Since switching to OS X, I find I can do lots
more with my computer.

So what we're really talking about here is your preference for OSX.
That is a perfectly reasonable way to choose a computer. But please
stop assuming everyone feels the way you do. We're not all strictly
mercenary, and I can't get jack done on a Mac -- I wouldn't take one if
you gave it to me.

I always wanted to manage my money on my
computer, but the only programs available for Linux in this department
were gnucash and grisbi (I believe that was the name), neither of which
were very good. Now it's as simple as paying thirty bucks for Quicken
and getting that functionality.

Sweet. That should help you save up the hundreds you'll be shelling out
for OS upgrades.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: VS.NET is too EXPENSIVE. Developers switching rapidly from it.
    ... >> going to switch to Linux because, quite frankly, VS.NET costs way too ... >> much in light of the huge competition from Linux. ... > cost of developer tools is too high then you may want to consider doing ... It is not just the developer tools. ...
    (microsoft.public.vsnet.general)
  • Re: VS.NET is too EXPENSIVE. Developers switching rapidly from it.
    ... >> going to switch to Linux because, quite frankly, VS.NET costs way too ... >> much in light of the huge competition from Linux. ... > cost of developer tools is too high then you may want to consider doing ... It is not just the developer tools. ...
    (comp.os.linux.misc)
  • Re: Lets talk about GUI and sound libraries
    ... For my desktop, Linux. ... have a lower total cost than Windows as a server, ... software costs money. ... Rails would cut down on their implementation time. ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: LONWorks vs. Ethernet
    ... >Linux PC, which also sends signals back to open and close the relays. ... >and how much the chips, transceivers, and external components cost ... >it's far too sensitive to wiring imperfections, and the network ... The AVR is a far superior device to the Neuron chip as far performance ...
    (comp.arch.embedded)
  • Hungarian method - bipartite matching
    ... cost solution and I think the problem is in the pseudo code. ... as long as alpha + beta = cost) ... we need to modify dual variables. ...
    (comp.theory)