Originally posted by curaga
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Parted Magic Is Still Free
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by Vim_User View PostIs that your version of the spirit of free software, where those that use software that you don't like have to be charged for every software they want to use? This shows us what hypocrites some FOSS users actually are: Oh no, I have to pay, but I want for free, charge others, NOT ME!!!!!
Supporters of proprietary software such as Windows and OS X should be glad they can get the software too. They can still get the software, and it will still be free software (free as in speech), just that they will have to pay a small price for it.
If you use a free software operating system of course you will be treated as a first-class citizen. If you use proprietary operating system, well then you don't mind paying for software do you?
I remember X-Chat was free on Linux because all developers used Linux.
Then it was still available on Windows, but there it cost money because the developers didn't use Windows so it required the developers to put in extra effort to port it to Windows and maintain the Windows port.
Comment
-
Originally posted by uid313 View PostReal free software enthusiasts who use free open source software platforms such as Linux and BSD deserve free open source software.
Supporters of proprietary software such as Windows and OS X should be glad they can get the software too. They can still get the software, and it will still be free software (free as in speech), just that they will have to pay a small price for it.
If you use a free software operating system of course you will be treated as a first-class citizen. If you use proprietary operating system, well then you don't mind paying for software do you?
By the way, if I use PartedMagic I use FOSS software, so this where you shoot yourself in the foot with your argumentation. Also, what do you think about RHEL or SLED users, or just people that bought a disc-set of Slackware to support its development, they paid for their OS, so they should also pay for other FOSS software, shouldn't they?
What you really are saying is: "I am a cheap-ass and the developer of PartedMagic doesn't deserve my money for his effort, I want others to pay for me!" and also "I am a hypocrite, because I believe that FOSS software should have conditions to whom it is free and to whom not, it should especially not be free to people that use software that has been paid for, contrary of the spirit of real open source enthusiasts!"
You Sir, with that attitude, a worthy candidate for my ignore list, have a nice life (that forces you to buy as much software as possible, and hopefully the most expensive one).
Comment
-
Originally posted by uid313 View PostYeah.
Code:if (navigator.platform.contains('Linux')) { // Show downloads } else { // Show paywall }
But should be opt-out something like this:
Code:if (navigator.platform.contains('Windows')) { // Show paywall } else if (navigator.platform.contains('Mac')) { // Show paywall } else // Show downloads }
Originally posted by Vim_User View PostIs that your version of the spirit of free software, where those that use software that you don't like have to be charged for every software they want to use? This shows us what hypocrites some FOSS users actually are: Oh no, I have to pay, but I want for free, charge others, NOT ME!!!!!
You use every chance to spread bullshit or accuse FOSS users. The idea is to charge ignorants who don't care about free software. Windows and Mac users are ignorants with no money problem, nothing bad about charging somebody who has money and does not care about free software. These people have no clue about free software, they do not care, they search for the replacement to Acronis Disk Director or Ghost, they take it and forget it.
You also support proprietary commercial, so you lie again ("Oh no, I have to pay, but I want for free, charge others, NOT ME!!") - so don't use commercial, mass-preinstalled since 1980 OS. If you use your Mac or Windows, and you DO -> PAY. These platforms do not support free software and contain the majority of ignorants. Free platforms on other end - have less user base, so its harder to pay the bills via development, and they are also not preinstalled, so the users who picked them actually care or at least have a clue. Problem solved.
Originally posted by Luke View PostMany users spoof useragent strings to protect against browser fingerprinting. All of them
will see the paywall unless they boot from a live disk or otherwise disable their browser
security
Comment
-
Originally posted by Vim_User View PostFree open source software has nothing at all to do with the price.
Originally posted by Vim_User View PostSo you are saying that just because I have a Windows installation for games that won't run under Linux I should pay for that, but you should not?
Originally posted by Vim_User View PostWhat a nonsense, if I am forced to use Windows for whatever reason (games, software needed for work that doesn't exist for Linux, ...) that doesn't mean that I appreciate to pay for it.
Ask PartedMagic developer - how many of the contributors downloading (using) windows are helping him develop this software.
If you don't have money to pay, yet you want free software running on proprietary OS that is anti-free software = help develop it.
If you don't want to pay and you don't want to help (which means you want free beer, not freedom), and you are using proprietary OS, you are a pirate that gives a whack.
Originally posted by Vim_User View PostNext you try to tell me that I should pay for Open/LibreOffice and Firefox?
But Firefox is more windows oriented and backed up by corporations - so no.
And what is this thing "Open/LibreOffice"? Is it "Open" userspace running on "LibreOffice" kernel?
Originally posted by Vim_User View PostBy the way, if I use PartedMagic I use FOSS software, so this where you shoot yourself in the foot with your argumentation. Also, what do you think about RHEL or SLED users, or just people that bought a disc-set of Slackware to support its development, they paid for their OS, so they should also pay for other FOSS software, shouldn't they?
Maybe you should quit your nonsense and start own "CentMagic"? If you have a lot of free time and can keep it as hobby - go ahead, suit yourself, its FOSS components after all.
Originally posted by Vim_User View PostWhat you really are saying is: "I am a cheap-ass and the developer of PartedMagic doesn't deserve my money for his effort, I want others to pay for me!"
If you use windows - pay. If you don't - you should pay or contribute. If Linux marketshare would be the size of windows paywall would still not apply, because Linux users do contribute unlike windows userbase, who knows only "freebie" and "premium".
Originally posted by Vim_User View Postand also "I am a hypocrite, because I believe that FOSS software should have conditions to whom it is free and to whom not, it should especially not be free to people that use software that has been paid for, contrary of the spirit of real open source enthusiasts!"
Originally posted by Vim_User View PostYou Sir, with that attitude, a worthy candidate for my ignore list, have a nice life (that forces you to buy as much software as possible, and hopefully the most expensive one).
Comment
-
Examnple: Firegloves (anti-fingerprinting) causes Firefox to use report Windows OS
Originally posted by brosis View PostUsers that have some sentience (ie. not-users) are hence not matched. Problem, officer?
The simplest fix would just be to include a line of text on the web page that users of pay software have to pay for Parted Magic too, as they contribute nothing to development of free software. Most Windows users would not pick up from that that they could spoof the useragent string (or boot from a live Linux CD) to get Parted Magic free, but Linux users who normally spoof useragent strings would catch on quickly. Hell, most Windoze users would not be able to spoof the useragent string, and would not posess a live Linux disc anyway.
I use Firefox with search engines and other potential trackers disabled, NoScript for Javascript control, Ghostery to stop trackers that NoScript misses and identify trackers, and Firegloves to block browser fingerprinting (cookieless tracking) by unknown/untrusted sites. Some websites have issues with this even if Firegloves is turned off and all scripts enabled, I don't use such sites if I don't trust them, else use them in Rekonq. This is due to who I am, as an activist media producer/newsman based in the US with the NSA and FBI as adversaries.
Thankfully, I make my own USB recovery sticks specialized for my systems-and can also use any of my system drives as a recovery drive for another.
Comment
-
Ok why exactly are people complaining about this or wanting Linux-users (only) to get the binaries for free?
AFAIK it's still open source, nothing stops you from downloading the source for free and compiling it yourself, for free. As long as downloading the source + compiling isn't hindered in any way, then it's all fine - you're not paying for the software per se, but for the service of having someone build the binaries and package the software for you. That's perfectly acceptable.
Comment
-
A lot of us on Linux have never used paid software
Originally posted by dee. View PostOk why exactly are people complaining about this or wanting Linux-users (only) to get the binaries for free?
AFAIK it's still open source, nothing stops you from downloading the source for free and compiling it yourself, for free. As long as downloading the source + compiling isn't hindered in any way, then it's all fine - you're not paying for the software per se, but for the service of having someone build the binaries and package the software for you. That's perfectly acceptable.
As I recall, in 1998 MS bundled IE with Windoze 98. They had been offering it as part of an add-on pack to Win95 for some time, while Netscape charged money for noncommercial users until 1995 and commerical users until 1998, when IE was bundled with Win98 and Netscape knew there would be no more paying customers.
From that came two things: An antitrust ruling in Europe against MS (for smashing the paid browser market), and the Mozilla Foundation. I have always assumed that the Netscape people, their business crushed by IE, produced Firefox for revenge and to stay in the field. I don't know their true motive, but they understood that to compete with IE they could not ask Win98 user for
more money, or Linux users for any money. They got funding from Google, which knew even then that MS would be a dangerous competitor and would seek to replace them online. I do not know if Google will now seek to defund Mozilla since they've got Chrome. If they do, the Firefox code still exists and can still be used.Last edited by Luke; 14 September 2013, 04:32 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Luke View PostIn my judgement, software that asks for or demands money cannot compete with as good or nearly as good software that never asks for money. Example: When you install Kdenlive there are no screens asking for money (or demanding license keys, etc) at setup. It's free and it's GOOD ENOUGH for my purposes. It doesn't matter if Lightworks is supposed to be better, or a Windows user with Adobe CSwhatever and a big GPU can render in 2 minutes instead of 5. Good enough and free automatically renders paid software uncompetitive.
This isn't really comparable to a nagscreen on some windows shareware (isn't it funny how there's practically no such thing as "shareware" on Linux?) though. This is still free software, the actual software doesn't ask for license codes, or doesn't nag you for payment, but if you want the pre-built ISO, you'll have to pay for the service of having it made for you. Nothing still stops you from looking at the source of all the components of that ISO and building them yourself if you so wish. Is it hard and cumbersome to do so? Maybe, but that's irrelevant - that just means the service of getting it made for you is actually worth something.
As I recall, in 1998 MS bundled IE with Windoze 98. They had been offering it as part of an add-on pack to Win95 for some time, while Netscape charged money for noncommercial users until 1995 and commerical users until 1998, when IE was bundled with Win98 and Netscape knew there would be no more paying customers.
From that came two things: An antitrust ruling in Europe against MS (for smashing the paid browser market), and the Mozilla Foundation. I have always assumed that the Netscape people, their business crushed by IE, produced Firefox for revenge and to stay in the field. I don't know their true motive, but they understood that to compete with IE they could not ask Win98 user for
more money, or Linux users for any money. They got funding from Google, which knew even then that MS would be a dangerous competitor and would seek to replace them online. I do not know if Google will now seek to defund Mozilla since they've got Chrome. If they do, the Firefox code still exists and can still be used.
Yes, some people code free software on their free time, but they're only able to do so because they make money in their real job, which limits their ability to contribute to free software considerably. Ok, I guess it's technically possible some free software contributors are unemployed and live on government money, and thus have all the free time they need, but until governments start paying extra money for doing free software development, that isn't really a sustainable model either.
So there needs to be some kind of model for funding the development of any software. Some make proprietary software and sell copies of the software. Most people in the FOSS community (and these days, even outside it) consider this to be an outdated business model (or at least outdated in most cases). But even if you make FOSS, the development needs to be funded in some way, if you want really dedicated coders that do it as more than their hobby. Now, there are numerous good, different business models that still preserve all the four freedoms. RMS and the FSF encourage free software developers to charge as much for their work as they can get away with, so free software has never been about being free as in beer.
Some like doing the code for free and asking for donations, some use fundraisers and crowdsourcing campaigns (possibly holding the code "hostage"), some use corporate sponsors, some use dual-licensing schemes, some get advertising money, some have service-based business models... all of these can be perfectly fine ways to fund the development of FOSS, as long as it's done in a way that respects the four freedoms, and other important freedoms such as user privacy (no spying/backdoors/data mining) and user control (no DRM/other malware).
Comment
-
Originally posted by Luke View PostIn my judgement, software that asks for or demands money cannot compete with as good or nearly as good software that never asks for money. Example: When you install Kdenlive there are no screens asking for money (or demanding license keys, etc) at setup. It's free and it's GOOD ENOUGH for my purposes. It doesn't matter if Lightworks is supposed to be better, or a Windows user with Adobe CSwhatever and a big GPU can render in 2 minutes instead of 5. Good enough and free automatically renders paid software uncompetitive.
As I recall, in 1998 MS bundled IE with Windoze 98. They had been offering it as part of an add-on pack to Win95 for some time, while Netscape charged money for noncommercial users until 1995 and commerical users until 1998, when IE was bundled with Win98 and Netscape knew there would be no more paying customers.
From that came two things: An antitrust ruling in Europe against MS (for smashing the paid browser market), and the Mozilla Foundation. I have always assumed that the Netscape people, their business crushed by IE, produced Firefox for revenge and to stay in the field. I don't know their true motive, but they understood that to compete with IE they could not ask Win98 user for
more money, or Linux users for any money. They got funding from Google, which knew even then that MS would be a dangerous competitor and would seek to replace them online. I do not know if Google will now seek to defund Mozilla since they've got Chrome. If they do, the Firefox code still exists and can still be used.
You can buy software without nag screens. There goes your first point.
Netscape failed because they didn't understand what most users wanted and because a competitor threw more money at their browser than Netscape had ever made. You can't compete with better AND free which is why monopolies and dumping are illegal. There goes your second point.
Mozilla made a business proposal to Google: I put a searchbox in Firefox that goes to your search engine and you give me money each time my users use it. There goes not only your third point but your first point again.
If paid software works you get developers that each day try to make their software better. They reach out to their users to find out what they want, what irritates them etc. Just think about where Linux could be if every user paid 30 dollar per year.
Comment
Comment