Ubuntu Board Votes On Non-Free Software Option

[crazycheese]

.. do not even want to allow one single distribution being more user friendly and opening itself up to proprietary software.

Your sentence build is wrong.

Its proprietary software that should open itself(as in free speech) to linux, not vice versa.

Vice versa would be "linux should close itself to proprietary software".

Why not let the users and developers decide? Are you afraid that Ubuntu could actually be successful? It really is not that much of a big deal if one distribution opens itself. There are still plenty of free distributions and they will continue to exist.

Why on earth don't you use windows? Its living proof why proprietary sucks, even with 99% market value because of 99% preinstalled cases.

[deanjo]

Why on earth don't you use windows? Its living proof why proprietary sucks, even with 99% market value because of 99% preinstalled cases.

You know that is a very weak excuse as to why windows dominates. Why it dominates is because of a large selection of polished software first and foremost. Even when people assemble their own machine that does not come with any OS a vast huge majority still go with windows and this is why even component manufacturers support windows as a priority. As far as security goes windows has made great strides in this area as well over the last while and most of the security issues stems from 3rd party. It has very little to do if the the source is open or not as well. Many open source applications have had security holes that sat around for years without anyone noticing despite the code being open *cough* mplayer, xine-lib, firefox, etc *cough*.

[devius]

Why it dominates is because of a large selection of polished software first and foremost.

And why is there a large selection? The thing is it has come preinstalled on every single computer sold in the last 18 years or so, and for a very long time manufacturers HAD to pay for windows licenses on computers they sold even if they didn't include windows.
If starting now linux distros came preinstalled on every single computer sold from this point forward, what do you think would be the dominant operating system 18 years from now?

[crazycheese]

You know that is a very weak excuse as to why windows dominates.

I can easily -funroll the loops:
--- Preparation ---
1) Get a HUGE credit
2) Get HUGE trust from one of the current leading companies
3) Sell copies of software PREINSTALLED, with costs already INCLUDED and hidden, AND at much LOWER DUMPING PRICE. Use money from credit. The market will be flooded with your BASE os, but there will be some concurrence.

--- Market takeover ---
4) Use 3E strategy to take on standards and slowly modify them by driving away 90% of user base from other compliant products.
5) To prevent the concurrence use same (Preparation) technique, make OEMs sign a contract, refusing to allow "normal dumping price" for product IF they preinstall something different than ours. This will effectively drive such OEMs offering multi-choice out of the market, due to all their products increasing price + ~$100 if sold with our leading product.
6) Use the same technique as in (5) on hardware vendors. Make them work for us and bind them by cross-patenting

--- Milk and watch ---
7) Detect potentually promising solutions partially targeting our plaform then buy or sue them. Consume them and make their technology working only on our platform.
8) Detect the parallel independent concurrence, not depending our technology and too big to consume, and:

8.1) outsource our technology to them under different name, keeping hidden juristic backdoors. They will polish our product for free and should they become any vital, we can use our backdoor to quickly terminate them, or take over them, or remove their advantage
8.2) buy-out their people, control them forcing key people take wrong or slow decisions
8.3) indirectly, via many one-day companies with different naming, buy-out the patents over vital technologies used in concurrent products, thus receiving strong kill-switch.
8.4) use controls over hardware vendors to provide constant hardware advantage via much better hardware support. This is only possible with closed-source drivers/firmware.
8.5) continue with consume or sue mechanism

9) *profit*


Now.
Explain me, where the words "innovation", "development" and "interoperability" - words that describe any innovative IT company, come in the plan above?

Software - is everywhere. All software tends to break, as its not able to modify(adapt) itself to changing environments. But, microsoft software is different. It runs only on microsoft OS, is not exchangeable or replaceable, will sometime kill or overtake all others, has draconian license, is always proprietary and always blackbox.

The only reasons why someone might love microsoft are following:
[ ] forced to
[ ] idiot
[ ] payed for it

[deanjo]

The only reasons why someone might love microsoft are following:
[ ] forced to
[ ] idiot
[ ] payed for it

[x] runs the software they want to run (99% of poll vote)

[Temar]

Your sentence build is wrong.

You're arguing about semantics.

Its proprietary software that should open itself(as in free speech) to linux, not vice versa.

Won't happen because it's just not possible. Most software can not be developed as FOSS if you actually want to make money. You can ignore this fact but that won't change anything.

Vice versa would be "linux should close itself to proprietary software".

Name it whatever you like.

Its living proof why proprietary sucks, even with 99% market value because of 99% preinstalled cases.

Repeating "proprietary software sucks" over and over again doesn't make it more true. Not every software can be developed as FOSS because sophisticated software requires a lot of manpower and someone has to pay the developers. Whoever that is needs to make money.

[crazycheese]

[x] runs the software they want to run (99% of poll vote)

Good joke!

[crazycheese]

You're arguing about semantics.

Nope, I'm arguing about wrong sentence build.

Won't happen because it's just not possible. Most software can not be developed as FOSS if you actually want to make money. You can ignore this fact but that won't change anything.

Nope, you can't protect information by removing the option to clone it. If information can't clone - it won't be accessible to anyone.

How about selling actual work instead of sitting on copies?

Repeating "proprietary software sucks" over and over again doesn't make it more true. Not every software can be developed as FOSS because sophisticated software requires a lot of manpower and someone has to pay the developers. Whoever that is needs to make money.

That crap is so sophisticated, it gets cracked and exploited daily. You telling me obfuscation of code before I sell it will bring me millions and millions of extra dollars? How about reality of failing DRM since 1980? How about just being crystal clear on everything - glass walls - best fairness ever? DRM belongs to the same trashbin where malware resides, because it IS a malware.

[devius]

Most software can not be developed as FOSS if you actually want to make money. You can ignore this fact but that won't change anything.

Tell that to Red Hat who are making close to 1 billion dollars a year on open-source software. Sure it's lacking the F as in free of cost, but still, not bad. Also, Facebook is based on FOSS (yes, this time it includes the F) with a lot of it developed in house and freely redistributed and they also don't seem to be all that bad when it comes to money income.

[deanjo]

Good joke!

There is nothing joking about it, it's fact.

The only joke is how foss linux zealots like to point fingers at everyone else and never take any of the blame themselves when it comes to addressing why linux isn't dominating the desktop space instead of addressing the areas it lacks to do so. It is also a joke is that they are so blinded with a narrow vision that they can't understand that not everyone is a programmer, not everyone thinks dropping to cli is fine, "good enough" is not good enough for all, there is no such thing as a "average user" other then the fact that everybodies needs are diverse and unique. It's just the same as why most people prefer not to buy "mechanic special" vehicles, or why they don't buy a standard def DIY tv, or why they don't buy a few goats instead of a lawn mower. People want stuff that works and fits their needs and wants. Like it or not, linux lacks in many of those very basic needs and wants without even having to go into common specialized areas to see that it is hurting there as well.