Parted Magic Is Still Free

[alcalde]

Haha, that's excellent! Targeted content at its finest.

Sometimes it does work like this. When Bryan Lunduke was selling his Creation Station software as a commercial product, he realized that he was getting zero support requests from Linux users, unlike Windows and OS X. He then changed his pricing such that anyone ordering the software from a browser the reported it was running on Linux would get an automatic discount since he figured he probably wouldn't need to support them.

[uid313]

Is 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!!!!!

Real 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?

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.

[Vim_User]

Real free software enthusiasts who use free open source software platforms such as Linux and BSD deserve free open source software.

Free open source software has nothing at all to do with the price.

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.

So 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?

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?

What 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. Next you try to tell me that I should pay for Open/LibreOffice and Firefox?
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).

[brosis]

Yeah.

if (navigator.platform.contains('Linux')) {
  // Show downloads
} else {
  // Show paywall
}

Brilliant idea!

But should be opt-out something like this:

if (navigator.platform.contains('Windows')) {
  // Show paywall
} else if (navigator.platform.contains('Mac')) {
  // Show paywall
} else
  // Show downloads
}

This covers all mobile and non-mobile versions of windows and mac/iphones etc; ie most commercial OSes; and opt-outs free or non-popular platforms (including Android).

Is 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 are hypocrite - you are not free software user, you are opensource (BSD) user; yet you try to speak for them.
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.

Many 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

Users that have some sentience (ie. not-users) are hence not matched. Problem, officer?

[brosis]

Free open source software has nothing at all to do with the price.

Of course it has. Someone should code it and not with empty stomach.

So 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?

He does not have windows, so he should not.

What 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.

No one forces you - use WINE or write own equivalent. If you use windows for whatever reason, that means you belong to windows userbase.
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.

Next you try to tell me that I should pay for Open/LibreOffice and Firefox?

Yes, you should.
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?

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?

He is not shooting in own feet, actually your shoot your own ass by trying to uncertain and FUD him. Free is not free beer, but free speech. RHEL and SLED are paying the developers from funds comming from its customers. Both RHEL and SLED are free to get, but not free to update (develop). Their customers did NOT pay for their OS, they pay for development of the OS that consists of multiple components that are almost all opensource - this includes "other FOSS software", a lot of RHEL and SLED developers maintain it. So, for those unable to pay the developers, yet demanding their work there is RHEL for the poor - Centos.

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.

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!"

No, I don't see how he is saying it. Linux has small marketshare and strongly supports Free Software. Windows has huge marketshare and does not support Free Software.
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".

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!"

Real open source enthusiasts? Are you confusing something? Is Parted suddenly BSD licensed? Actually, if it would, it would very probably be wrapped around EULA with payment unconditionally required. GPL prevents that, actually it prevents harm that author could have done by making it unconditionally commercial closed source. No one would help develop it and the project would die.

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).

Keep on, soon you will ban yourself from the forums. It must be fun to live in a walled garden with double standards; its must be like Cuba.

[Luke]

Examnple: Firegloves (anti-fingerprinting) causes Firefox to use report Windows OS

Users that have some sentience (ie. not-users) are hence not matched. Problem, officer?

If I needed this software, I could get it by using Rekonq, but would have to know that the reason I was shown the paywall in Firefox was because most anti-cookieless tracking software sets Firefox to report that it is running under Windoze. This is to hide a privacy-requiring user among the far larger number of Windoze users.

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.

[dee.]

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.

[Luke]

A lot of us on Linux have never used paid software

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.

In 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.

[dee.]

In 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.

Well, RHEL is doing pretty well, even though you can get CentOS for free.

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.

Well, that's still not the same thing as what is happening here. And if consider practical issues, the fact of the matter is, until/unless we some day live in a society where the government sponsors all software development with taxpayer money, or we some day live in a post-scarcity society where money has no meaning, software development has to be funded in some way - even free software.

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).

[Ferdinand]

In 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.

I think you are absolutely wrong and twist all your examples to your viewpoint.

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.