[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again


On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 01:22:09PM -0400, Doug wrote:
> On 09/27/2015 04:12 PM, Bob Holtzman wrote:
> >On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 02:58:20PM +0300, Eliezer Croitoru wrote:
> >>On 27/09/2015 13:47, Reco wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>The above is one of the main reasons that many sysadmins prefer to use
> >>>>>RedHat and Windows despite the fact that both companies cannot always be
> >>>>>aware of very critical bugs.
> >>>Oh. Now you put the Red Hat Enterprise Linux in the non-free category.
> >>>May I ask why you did so?
> >>
> >>Answer: Can I get a copy of this
> >>[http://www.redhat.com/en/technologies/virtualization] without
> >>paying and with all the benefits?
> >
> >You're making the mistake of linux non-free soft ware with proprietary
> >software. I suggest you read up on open source software.
> >
> >          .........snip........
> >
> There is Linux software that is proprietary and not free. Just because that's the
> case does not make such software a bad choice or a bad deal.

No, you are wrong here. First, you're trying to introduce a false
dichotomy as if 'proprietary' and 'non-free' are different somehow.
Second, 'non-free' is *always* a bad choice.

> One must decide what the software will do, and if it is worth the price.

Please define 'price' in this context.

> Let us remember that many-- perhaps most--users of the Linux os are
> not programmers, and cannot take advantage of software being
> open-source.

Probably. But any free software user can take advantage of the ability
to run free software any way for any purpose. And it does not require
one to be a programmer :)

Confusing 'open-source' with 'free software' is a common mistake.

> Among programs which are not open and not free are several CAD programs

That's hardly everyone's necessity.

> and at least one office suite.

That Chineese one, or M$ one?

> I'm sure there are others.


Reply to: