Ubuntu Board Votes On Non-Free Software Option

[yogi_berra]

Tell that to Red Hat who are making close to 1 billion dollars a year on open-source software.

Oracle reported $8.8 billion for their third quarter. Just the third quarter. Red Hat isn't as big a company as they want you to believe.

[yogi_berra]

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.

Duh, Winning!

[crazycheese]

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

No one with minor IQ would ever run proprietary if:
- he were informed that antiviruses do not really work
- he has to blindly trust
- there is an alternative

Proprietary is about concealing the information that:
- is cracked by interested anyway
- provides big block to portability and trust
- jeopardizes privacy

The only joke is how foss linux zealots

There is nothing zealous at stating the obvious truth. Being informed and labeled "zealot" is WAY better than being a redneck, that label you.

...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.

I have already provided glues why linux(or any other open system) is not dominating. It is actively being hindered.

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.

With linux (or any open source system) you are free to choose which parts you prefer. If those parts exist or their development is not hindered.

[crazycheese]

Oracle reported $8.8 billion for their third quarter. Just the third quarter. Red Hat isn't as big a company as they want you to believe.

Oracle mostly aggressively sells software(using opencore model), where RH sells the service(and derived upgrades) that are open source after development.

[mirv]

RMS was making money while developing emacs. It was free, open source, and yet he was making money. Not the stupidly massive profits closed source companies can rake in, but money none the less.
Now proprietary software can make more money, sure, but it comes with a lot of baggage - like being dependent upon the company making it. I've missed out on opportunities simply company B doesn't want to rely on company A (which I work for) - B wanted what A could provide, but wanted code in the end too. The reason that B didn't develop in house? Developer experience. They didn't have it, and it was cheaper and faster to simply hire someone who already knew about everything they wanted.
As for proprietary providing software that open source doesn't, that's also goes the other way. Many companies use eclipse-based IDEs because there's nothing else appropriately available. GCC-based compilers are also quite wide spread in the embedded world. GNU/Linux itself runs on routers, networking gear, might even find its way into cars, and I have seen it running entertainment systems in aeroplanes.
Proprietary software has its place. Open source software has its place. There's also a lot of overlap between the two. Best tools for the job and all.

[yotambien]

No one with minor IQ would ever run proprietary if [...]

Lately there's been quite a lot of nonsense posts with rubbish claims like this. You people love to talk about IQ scores and imply your belonging to some intellectual elite because you use a particular operative system. Nevermind how absolutely ridiculous this idea is or how idiotic the whole concept of IQ measurements turns out to be.

[deanjo]

Being informed and labeled "zealot" is WAY better than being a redneck, that label you.

You realize the the origin of 'redneck' is from being a 'poor southern white farmer' right? Well I do own a farm, I am white, but not even close to poor or live in the south. Any ways their red neck came from doing hard work in the fields being in the sun all day.

I have already provided glues why linux(or any other open system) is not dominating. It is actively being hindered.

Yup sure it is being hindered, by no one else more then it's own developers by choice.

[mirv]

Yup sure it is being hindered, by no one else more then it's own developers by choice.

I agree here. I personally think that most developers are not targetting wide spread home user use, but more technically minded folk. I don't see anything wrong with that either; it makes things easier for those folk.

[deanjo]

Lately there's been quite a lot of nonsense posts with rubbish claims like this. You people love to talk about IQ scores and imply your belonging to some intellectual elite because you use a particular operative system. Nevermind how absolutely ridiculous this idea is or how idiotic the whole concept of IQ measurements turns out to be.

Ya I just about fell out of my chair laughing at that claim considering every mensa event I attend Windows pc's dominate the room.

[locovaca]

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.

There is nothing Free about Facebook. Just because it does not demand a monetary repayment for services rendered doesn't mean it isn't obtaining repayment via other means.