Originally posted by Grogan
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Maxthon Web Browser Being Ported To Linux
Collapse
X
-
Last edited by schmidtbag; 27 September 2013, 01:23 PM.
-
Originally posted by schmidtbag View Post*sigh* As usual, WHY DO YOU CARE? I know that you personally will not take advantage of it being open source. I'm sure you won't edit a single line of code, I'm sure you won't compile it for another architecture, I'm sure you have no motive to redistribute the software yourself, and I'm sure you have no legal reasons to need it open source. Of every single time you bitched about closed source software coming to linux, free or not, you have yet to provide even 1 good reason why something MUST be open source if it's on linux. Linux itself is free and open source but even Linus Torvalds himself said you are free to SELL it in a commercialized manner. It's not like this maxthon browser is capitalizing off of linux. If it did, that would be much more of a "fuck off" move than simply closing the source to something they hold the rights to.
I have no problem with anyone selling anything.
Selling software is fine by me!
I would gladly pay money for free open source software.
My problem is with proprietary closed source software.
Money is not an issue.
The issue is freedom.
Comment
-
Freedom means that users are able to run whatever software they want in their OS. If Linux made it impossible to run proprietary software, then Linux itself would no longer be free software, by definition. To be considered free software, the software must allow the user to use it in any way they see fit, with no extra restrictions (other than copyleft, and copyleft doesn't restrict usage, only distribution).
Besides, Linux needs proprietary software. It'd be great if we lived in a world where all software is open source, but that's not the case. I see it in practical terms: in order for Linux to gain more mainstream success, it needs to attract proprietary software titles, because many times people stick to windows because they can't get software X elsewhere. "Can I use photoshop on Linux? Can I play <the latest boring FPS game>?" The latter is getting fixed thanks to Steam, but the former is still a long way from happening. And maybe you don't care about Linux getting more mainstream adoption, but the only way to attract proper support from hardware vendors is for them to see Linux as more than just a tiny niche OS with no real marketshare.
No one still forces you to use any of the proprietary software. But it's good that it's there for those who want/need it, because it ultimately also benefits all of the open source community, by making Linux a stronger platform overall.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by dee. View PostFreedom means that users are able to run whatever software they want in their OS. If Linux made it impossible to run proprietary software, then Linux itself would no longer be free software, by definition. To be considered free software, the software must allow the user to use it in any way they see fit, with no extra restrictions (other than copyleft, and copyleft doesn't restrict usage, only distribution).
Besides, Linux needs proprietary software. It'd be great if we lived in a world where all software is open source, but that's not the case. I see it in practical terms: in order for Linux to gain more mainstream success, it needs to attract proprietary software titles, because many times people stick to windows because they can't get software X elsewhere. "Can I use photoshop on Linux? Can I play <the latest boring FPS game>?" The latter is getting fixed thanks to Steam, but the former is still a long way from happening. And maybe you don't care about Linux getting more mainstream adoption, but the only way to attract proper support from hardware vendors is for them to see Linux as more than just a tiny niche OS with no real marketshare.
No one still forces you to use any of the proprietary software. But it's good that it's there for those who want/need it, because it ultimately also benefits all of the open source community, by making Linux a stronger platform overall.
I don't care about Linux market share.
If other people want to use it fine, if they don't, then fine with me, I don't care what other people use.
I don't go around trying to recruit people to Linux. Usually, I never tell anyone that I use Linux.
Windows is hundred times bigger than Linux. Yet Linux have more free software than Windows.
Why is this?
If Linux were to have greater proprietary influence with more proprietary software, then the result may be less free software.
The free software is the part of Linux that appeals to me.
I can run an operating system and everything can be free open source software. That is very appealing to me.
If Linux wasn't free software, or the Linux software eco system wasn't so strongly centered and focused around free software, then I probably wouldn't use Linux.
The great thing about Linux is free software.
Technically Windows is a superior operating system. It is more much stable, crashes less often, everything just works, you don't have audio glitches, the graphics performance is better, there is much less bugs and regressions, etc.
Comment
-
Originally posted by finalzone View PostNewer version of Adobe Photoshop is part of Creative Cloud meaning subscription only unless someone is willing to pirate a copy.
That is an example of application Linux system does not need.
We have great open-source graphics software, some of it even better than proprietary options, I personally use them all the time and recommend them to everyone - but there are still some things that can't be done by any open-source tools, and proprietary tools are needed for those. Indesign is considered an industry standard in all print media, many design companies also require work submitted in indesign files - that or psd... No, it's not an ideal situation, but it's not going to get fixed by just insisting that businesses start using open source...
I'd be glad to see open source replace proprietary tools in the graphics industry. We're going to need some companies to start investing into and sponsoring open-soure graphics projects, in order to make that happen.
Comment
-
Originally posted by uid313 View PostWindows is hundred times bigger than Linux. Yet Linux have more free software than Windows.
Why is this?
If Linux were to have greater proprietary influence with more proprietary software, then the result may be less free software.
The free software is the part of Linux that appeals to me.
I can run an operating system and everything can be free open source software. That is very appealing to me.
If Linux wasn't free software, or the Linux software eco system wasn't so strongly centered and focused around free software, then I probably wouldn't use Linux.
However, they may bring those people (and companies) who need that one particular proprietary program for whatever reason - they need it for their work, etc. - and who earlier have had to use Windows, to Linux.
The great thing about Linux is free software.
Technically Windows is a superior operating system. It is more much stable, crashes less often, everything just works, you don't have audio glitches, the graphics performance is better, there is much less bugs and regressions, etc.
Also, the thing is, most of the glitches and crashes on Linux is precisely because of poor hardware support. In order to fix that, Linux needs more marketshare, more support from hardware manufacturers.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Alejandro Nova View PostBTW...
Last time I checked Maxthon, it was a social network wrapper around Internet Explorer. Do they have their own HTML rendering engine now?
Comment
Comment