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
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.