Why Microsoft needed to make Windows run Linux software

And how it could leapfrog Apple as the dev platform of choice.

Read the whole story

 

[auxilio]

enduzzer[/url]":2n8vbxmc]

auxilio[/url]":2n8vbxmc]

enduzzer[/url]":2n8vbxmc]

auxilio[/url]":2n8vbxmc]
I like Linux - I like the ideas it stands for and I'm comfortable using Bash etc to get things done. But that doesn't mean I'm blind to its shortcomings.

What you call shortcomings are hardware manufacturers' shortcomings. Blame them for their decisions not to support Linux on their hardware.

Nobody's forcing you to step out of your ways. For me, I value my freedoms more than convenience. It's very easy to find a Wi-Fi dongle that works in Linux. No big deal.

It might be the manufacturer's fault, sure. But it's still a shortcoming of Linux as a platform that I have to be so careful and can't just put Linux on any random laptop I have laying around. The WiFi module can be worked around, true. But how about graphics driver issues? DVD drive issues? Reboot issues? Keyboard backlighting? WiFi toggle switches?

Again, I don't care *who* is to blame, just that it doesn't fully work like Windows does.

I can't put Windows or OS X on any random computer and expect them to run. If you want an out of the box experience, you'd better stick to the OS the machine came loaded with unless you're prepaired to change anything in the hardware configuration in the event that something is not working.

You can with Windows. Just about every piece of hardware has a Windows driver, and it's usually the one that's the most polished.

There's a live ISO available, burn it it and try if the hardware is detected and supported.

Yes, and I like that they're available. But when you've tried a couple distributions and can't get your WiFi working, and none of them support your keyboard backlighting, or your volume rocker, or your WiFi toggle then it's painful to keep trying.

Ubuntu and Mint come with a kernel that has binary blobs or firmware to support most modern hardware. If they fail, you're out of luck.

Ubuntu, Mint, and Fedora are the three distributions I've tried. And they have all given me issues. Being out of luck isn't acceptable.

There is no need to blame anybody but yourself if you see a problem in diversity and freedom of choice. GNU/Linux is good and getting better all the time but it's only as good on a given hardware as the vendors want it to be. The community and up-stream developers work to make it support a wide range of hardware without the user needing to install any drivers. Hardware that is veiled in secrecy cannot be supported. There must be several reasons why a manufacturer is oblivious to Linux. They might not agree with the requirement that the driver source code should be published for all to study and modify.

So because I can't get Linux running on my hardware, that's my fault? Yeah, I'm surprised Linux isn't more popular /s

 

[ampet]

Ragnir[/url]":y7odmo7x]

Adriano Petrosillo[/url]":y7odmo7x]
I'll also add that many people couldn't care less about aluminium shells and nice design, and may be very content with a cheap plastic laptop and a generic design. Me, for example. It's not as if those aluminium shells are going to protect your laptop that much, by the way. Drop a Macbook, drop a cheap laptop, you're probably going to have a huge headache in both cases.

That's all fine and well – to each their own – but that doesn't make the two comparable.

By that logic you might as well say that a Geo Metro is equal to a Ferrari, because it gets you from A to B and you don't care about horsepower. Apart from the personal reason, they're still objectively built to a very different standard, resulting in a different price.

Was I saying anything different? Macbooks are (also) more expensive because they are built more expensively than a cheap laptop.

 

[sadsteve]

Aureum Aquilam[/url]":23o0zlge]

sadsteve[/url]":23o0zlge]

CmdrKeene[/url]":23o0zlge]

BeowulfSchaeffer[/url]":23o0zlge]"Linux for various reasons still may not be the most comfortable desktop platform..."

I've had both Windows and Linux Mint on my computer for about a year I think. I put Mint on to "try it out" and I like it quite a lot. I rarely go back to windows (7 Pro) and whenever I do, I have to update all of the software and restart the machine, sometimes multiple times. I have to say, Linux just... works.

So getting updates you don't see since you're not using it is a detriment? Wouldn't Linux also have pending updates you'd need to install if your usage pattern was reversed for a while?

At least with Mint Linux I have the option of installing the update or not. Windows 10 pretty much forces them on you.

You're comparing apples to oranges, here.

First, with Windows 10 it's essentially always shipping to you a new version of the OS, so it's the equivalent of a kernel upgrade more-or-less. If you're not picking up kernel upgrades, you're making the security researchers out there cry.

??? I had multiple updates of Windows 10 that weren't a new version of the OS. Security patches, Defender updates, driver updates, etc. When there's new functionality, yes that's like a Linux kernel update but the minor updates for drivers, defender and such are not a new version of the OS.

 

[woodelf]

zogus[/url]":11awwtfk]

tjukken[/url]":11awwtfk]"Indeed, for a number of years, it wasn't a huge exaggeration to say that Apple made the only x86 laptops that were both reasonably affordable and pleasant to use."

THAT really was a huge exaggeration. Windows laptops were no harder to use than Apple's. And they were more affordable, as they didn't command the huge premium Apple took for essentially the same hardware.

No they weren't, and aren't.

In Christmas 2011 I was looking for a light laptop to take on a trip. Although I have been a Mac user, I wanted a cheap Windows machine because all I was planning to use on the road were web, mail and a couple of small Windows-only apps, and we all know Apple overcharges, right?

Well, Windows laptops turned out to be either too big (15", 2.5kg and a 1366x768 display?), ran on glacial Atoms, or too expensive (comparable to Macs), and all were hobbled with terrible trackpads. In the end, I was surprised to find that an 11" MacBook Air was the only machine that was neither ridiculously expensive, ridiculously slow, nor absurdly large, all at the same time. So I got one of those, with the Windows apps running in a VM. It's still my road machine today.

Fast forward to February 2016. Now my wife wants a laptop of her own, so we go look for a Windows machine because that is what she uses at work. We started by looking at a MacBook Pro 13", which she liked a lot, and decided to find a Windows machine that is approximately equivalent but is cheaper--because we all know Apple overcharges, right?

Well, again, I was surprised that the situation is still the same--the cheap Windows laptops are hobbled with huge 15" chassis coupled with crappy displays, and the nice ones with SSDs and retina-grade displays are as expensive as equivalent Macs. At least the trackpads are much better today. My wife takes one last look at Surface Book, shrugs at the sticker price, and says "At this kind of a price, I'd rather get the Mac."

So once again I find myself enriching Tim Cook by process of elimination, and I can't help asking myself where this urban legend of Apple's "huge premium" comes from.

I presume ads/marketing. Because pretty much every time I've seen an in-depth comparison, for decades, the TCO for a Mac has been significantly lower and while there have always been cheaper Windows devices, Windows devices with roughly matching specs have generally been about the same price.

I noticed with interest that when MS started pushing the various Surface iterations as a direct competitor to the MacBook Air they quietly dropped any mention of "cheaper"--or price at all--from their advertising. Which makes sense because generally a Surface with equivalent specs is the same price or slightly more than a MacBook Air (or was when I last checked, a year or so ago).

 

[enduzzer]

auxilio[/url]":2ua0t4uc]
So because I can't get Linux running on my hardware, that's my fault? Yeah, I'm surprised Linux isn't more popular /s

If it came preloaded with GNU/Linux and it doesn't work, promptly return the thing to the shop for a refund. Otherwise, you're on your own.

What makes you think that Linux should work on your hardware?

What makes you think it's a popularity contest?

With Linux, you're your own OEM. Before you buy, find out what hardware is likely to work. Sometimes it's only the wifi that is non-functional. Go get a wifi dongle that works or install a firmware blob if available.

Linux is all about your freedoms. They are guaranteed. Free libre software won't abuse you. You are in control of your computer, not the other way around.

Besides, with Linux, you'll have help a few clicks away.

https://askubuntu.com/questions/644410/cannot-turn-on-keyboard-backlight

 

[Statistical]

vartec[/url]":3bslbj5x]

foljs[/url]":3bslbj5x]
They have great slimness, weight, durability (due to the unibody construction), and battery life. Plus, they tend to offer the best screens on the market (hi-dpi "retina" came on Mac laptops first, and besides that reviews have consistently pinned them to the top or near for color accuracy etc, including in Ars),

That used to be the case in 2009. In 2016 any $800 hi-def 13" ultrabook has 40-50% more pixels than 13" retina. And touchscreen. And Gorilla Glass.

And let's not forget MacBook Air, with 1440x900 on 13". For 2016 that is abysmally low.

Competing PC laptops sometimes beat them in one or the other category, but rarely in most such areas -- and when they do, they tend to be the high end models (Dell, Sony Vaio, etc) with same pricing as the Mac equivalents.

MacBook Pro 15" - here is where Apple shines, best quad-core laptop on the market, alternatives are bulky "workstation laptops", which are way more powerful, but are big, heavy and expensive.

Only if you omit the following:
XPS 15, Precision 5000, Asus Zenbook 501 or even things like EVO15-S. All come with a 4K display.

2 and more years ago Apple was a de-facto monopoly in that segment, not anymore.

Exactly plus XPS 15 comes with a nice service manual.
http://topics-cdn.dell.com/pdf/xps-15-9 ... _en-us.pdf

Just make sure to get one with 84Wh battery & m.2 SSD. The models with a 2.5" HDD only have room for the smaller 56Wh battery.

 

[Danrarbc]

enduzzer[/url]":3sow380h]

auxilio[/url]":3sow380h]
So because I can't get Linux running on my hardware, that's my fault? Yeah, I'm surprised Linux isn't more popular /s

Besides, with Linux, you'll have help a few clicks away.

https://askubuntu.com/questions/644410/cannot-turn-on-keyboard-backlight

But that requires exposing myself to a community that 16 years of experience has taught me seems pretty toxic for anyone that isn't willing to immerse themselves 100% in the dogma.

Although I will admit that if there IS a FOSS community that keeps it somewhat in check it probably is the Ubuntu community.

 

[Randalar]

fjleon[/url]":2g8o3px5]Mac laptops are still overpriced and underpowered. You can get a decent 15.6" pc laptop for 700$. I believe the cheapest macbook is 1K and with a small screen size and memory. So i don't believe Apple laptops "proliferated" especially with less than 5% of market share. However, developers DID want a good stable UNIX OS with a good desktop, even i took the bullet with a 2003 12" powerbook (priced 1700$ mind you)

Yeah, I laughed when he said "... Apple made the only x86 laptops that were both reasonably affordable and pleasant to use". Made me wonder if he's another Mac Fanboy. Windows based PCs are far, far cheaper than Apple stuff. I'm not rich enough to blow money on one just to become more comfortable with it when I do fine with the dev tools I have. You received a huge amount of down votes, but I frankly agree with what you said.

 

[KnightRAF]

agrouf[/url]"p88oj7p]

KnightRAF[/url]"p88oj7p]

enduzzer[/url]"p88oj7p]

agrouf[/url]"p88oj7p]In a way that's a failing of the GPL. Maybe it's time for GPL v4. GNU is technically a good system but many people forget or don't care it's about freedom first and foremost. Running GNU on Windows defeats the purpose of GNU.
I know the Ars community doesn't care about freedom and I fully expect a rain of downvotes but I hope the few with an open mind can still read it before it disappears from view.

There's a thread on Trisquel forums about this.

https://trisquel.info/en/forum/ubun...roject-canonical-and-microsoft-what-your-idea

Wow...

Virtually everyone in that discussion comes across as a religious zealot with only tenuous connections to reality. That was actually painful to read.

There is no religion involved in this discussion, you are too close minded. Not everyone has the same opinions as you. They are discussing from the perspective of the people who brought bash and GNU to the world. People want to use GNU for cheap. They think GNU is a public service that is owed to them. They can't understand the restrictions on it but they are OK with Windows EULA. They think it's fair that Microsoft just take GNU but the wine team has to reverse engineer their code and they call name on anyone who doesn't agree, even the ones who created GNU. The irony is when they call them religious zealots or go as far as calling them 'entitled' and whiny.

Yeah, they're discussing from the perspective of people who think anyone who disagrees with their philosophy is immoral, abusive, and dangerous. You know, like a a religion. And there are a couple of people in that discussion who appear to have elevated RMS to the level of infallible demigod/prophet. I'd say that the group involved in that discussion meets at least two and arguably three of the definitions for religion given here.

The idea that Microsoft including these tools in Windows is some kind of giant secret plan to destroy free software makes zero sense, yet nearly everyone in that discussion believes that it is such a secret plan, and the few who disagree plainly still think that is a reasonable suspicion to have. I do not recall a single person in that discussion providing any evidence of such a plan or explanation on how such a plan would work, beyond "It's Microsoft so it must be evil". They have bought into their religious dogma that Microsoft is evil so heavily that they are no longer capable of rationally evaluating anything that involves Microsoft. That's why I called them zealots.

 

[auxilio]

enduzzer[/url]":3n3onsj2]

auxilio[/url]":3n3onsj2]
So because I can't get Linux running on my hardware, that's my fault? Yeah, I'm surprised Linux isn't more popular /s

If it came preloaded with GNU/Linux and it doesn't work, promptly return the thing to the shop for a refund. Otherwise, you're on your own.

What makes you think that Linux should work on your hardware?

What makes you think it's a popularity contest?

With Linux, you're your own OEM. Before you buy, find out what hardware is likely to work. Sometimes it's only the wifi that is non-functional. Go get a wifi dongle that works or install a firmware blob if available.

Linux is all about your freedoms. They are guaranteed. Free libre software won't abuse you. You are in control of your computer, not the other way around.

Besides, with Linux, you'll have help a few clicks away.

https://askubuntu.com/questions/644410/cannot-turn-on-keyboard-backlight

I already have hardware. If I have to buy special hardware to make it work, then it's a shortcoming of the platform.

I don't feel abused by Windows. I feel disappointed and frustrated when software doesn't work on my hardware. I feel abused if I have to ask for help to get trivial things like WiFi, WiFi toggle switches, volume rockers, keyboard backlighting, and suspend/hibernate working. Muttering "but it's free/libre!" to myself isn't going to magically make me happier or fix my hardware issues.

 

[fro]

Viewer[/url]":2hw8tfod]

fro[/url]":2hw8tfod]Until Microsoft, Dell, HP, and the like begin producing interesting consumer electronics products their mindshare will continue to suffer. They will need to address that issue before we see smart college students switching platforms in droves.

This is about popular useful developer technologies, like Redis, Rudy, Node, Cassandra, Kafka, Spark, and Scala. None of those products have any direct connection to consumer electronics.

No, its about much, much more than that, which the author addressed in the article when he said

This effect was compounded further by Apple's enduring popularity in San Francisco and Silicon Valley, and, related, the growth of iOS as an application platform. Smart kids fresh out of university (whether they dropped out or otherwise) weren't thrust into the Windows-centric world of corporate America. They could instead thrive in a culture that revered Apple and equipped them all with shiny new MacBook Pros. Windows wasn't reviled the way that the die-hard open source advocates reviled it; it just wasn't part of their life.

 

[vartec]

icejam_[/url]":hp86s7ha]

vartec[/url]":hp86s7ha]

foljs[/url]":hp86s7ha]
They have great slimness, weight, durability (due to the unibody construction), and battery life. Plus, they tend to offer the best screens on the market (hi-dpi "retina" came on Mac laptops first, and besides that reviews have consistently pinned them to the top or near for color accuracy etc, including in Ars),

That used to be the case in 2009. In 2016 any $800 hi-def 13" ultrabook has 40-50% more pixels than 13" retina. And touchscreen. And Gorilla Glass.

And let's not forget MacBook Air, with 1440x900 on 13". For 2016 that is abysmally low.

Competing PC laptops sometimes beat them in one or the other category, but rarely in most such areas -- and when they do, they tend to be the high end models (Dell, Sony Vaio, etc) with same pricing as the Mac equivalents.

MacBook Pro 15" - here is where Apple shines, best quad-core laptop on the market, alternatives are bulky "workstation laptops", which are way more powerful, but are big, heavy and expensive.

Only if you omit the following:
XPS 15, Precision 5000, Asus Zenbook 501 or even things like EVO15-S. All come with a 4K display.

2 and more years ago Apple was a de-facto monopoly in that segment, not anymore.

Actually... You are totally right. That's good to know. They even sell Precision 5510 in Developer Edition

 

[jballou]

I hate to be nitpicky, but I'm pretty sure that saying that OSX is based on FreeBSD incorrect. OSX has roots in Unix and BSD, but it is quite distinct from either in philosophy, design, and implementation. Darwin is a blend of Unix, NextStep, BSD, Mach, and a bunch of other pieces assembled to a mostly POSIX implementation of their own OS. If I recall, Apple did hire one of the early BSD developers to tighten up and integrate the post-AT&T split stuff that Next hadn't yet done, but other than that my understanding is there is no real link between the two beyond the shared code and POSIX aspirations.

 

[agrouf]

auxilio[/url]":2ig331g3]

enduzzer[/url]":2ig331g3]

auxilio[/url]":2ig331g3]
So because I can't get Linux running on my hardware, that's my fault? Yeah, I'm surprised Linux isn't more popular /s

If it came preloaded with GNU/Linux and it doesn't work, promptly return the thing to the shop for a refund. Otherwise, you're on your own.

What makes you think that Linux should work on your hardware?

What makes you think it's a popularity contest?

With Linux, you're your own OEM. Before you buy, find out what hardware is likely to work. Sometimes it's only the wifi that is non-functional. Go get a wifi dongle that works or install a firmware blob if available.

Linux is all about your freedoms. They are guaranteed. Free libre software won't abuse you. You are in control of your computer, not the other way around.

Besides, with Linux, you'll have help a few clicks away.

https://askubuntu.com/questions/644410/cannot-turn-on-keyboard-backlight

I already have hardware. If I have to buy special hardware to make it work, then it's a shortcoming of the platform.

I don't feel abused by Windows. I feel disappointed and frustrated when software doesn't work on my hardware. I feel abused if I have to ask for help to get trivial things like WiFi, WiFi toggle switches, volume rockers, keyboard backlighting, and suspend/hibernate working. Muttering "but it's free/libre!" to myself isn't going to magically make me happier or fix my hardware issues.

If you don't feel abused by Windows, you are not the target of GNU. GNU is all about free/libre software. It's OK, nobody is asking you to use it. You are happy with Windows and that's fine. GNU is made by and for people who are not happy with the legal and technical restrictions in proprietary software. We are glad that you use Windows and don't feel abused. Now running GNU on Windows raises some concerns to some of us. For a start I believe proper credit should be given where it is due. It's GNU software, not "Linux" and it's packaged by Debian, not Canonical or Ubuntu.

 

[agrouf]

KnightRAF[/url]":r9v9mryv]

agrouf[/url]":r9v9mryv]

KnightRAF[/url]":r9v9mryv]

enduzzer[/url]":r9v9mryv]

agrouf[/url]":r9v9mryv]In a way that's a failing of the GPL. Maybe it's time for GPL v4. GNU is technically a good system but many people forget or don't care it's about freedom first and foremost. Running GNU on Windows defeats the purpose of GNU.
I know the Ars community doesn't care about freedom and I fully expect a rain of downvotes but I hope the few with an open mind can still read it before it disappears from view.

There's a thread on Trisquel forums about this.

https://trisquel.info/en/forum/ubun...roject-canonical-and-microsoft-what-your-idea

Wow...

Virtually everyone in that discussion comes across as a religious zealot with only tenuous connections to reality. That was actually painful to read.

There is no religion involved in this discussion, you are too close minded. Not everyone has the same opinions as you. They are discussing from the perspective of the people who brought bash and GNU to the world. People want to use GNU for cheap. They think GNU is a public service that is owed to them. They can't understand the restrictions on it but they are OK with Windows EULA. They think it's fair that Microsoft just take GNU but the wine team has to reverse engineer their code and they call name on anyone who doesn't agree, even the ones who created GNU. The irony is when they call them religious zealots or go as far as calling them 'entitled' and whiny.

Yeah, they're discussing from the perspective of people who think anyone who disagrees with their philosophy is immoral, abusive, and dangerous. You know, like a a religion. And there are a couple of people in that discussion who appear to have elevated RMS to the level of infallible demigod/prophet. I'd say that the group involved in that discussion meets at least two and arguably three of the definitions for religion given here.

The idea that Microsoft including these tools in Windows is some kind of giant secret plan to destroy free software makes zero sense, yet nearly everyone in that discussion believes that it is such a secret plan, and the few who disagree plainly still think that is a reasonable suspicion to have. I do not recall a single person in that discussion providing any evidence of such a plan or explanation on how such a plan would work, beyond "It's Microsoft so it must be evil". They have bought into their religious dogma that Microsoft is evil so heavily that they are no longer capable of rationally evaluating anything that involves Microsoft. That's why I called them zealots.

And yet they made some good points but you dismissed them as zealots, the same way you accuse them of dismissing Microsoft as evil. Instead you should join the discussion and expose your opinion in a civil way. Name calling doesn't make you right.

 

[icejam_]

agrouf[/url]":2s16y8fk]

KnightRAF[/url]":2s16y8fk]

agrouf[/url]":2s16y8fk]

KnightRAF[/url]":2s16y8fk]

enduzzer[/url]":2s16y8fk]

agrouf[/url]":2s16y8fk]In a way that's a failing of the GPL. Maybe it's time for GPL v4. GNU is technically a good system but many people forget or don't care it's about freedom first and foremost. Running GNU on Windows defeats the purpose of GNU.
I know the Ars community doesn't care about freedom and I fully expect a rain of downvotes but I hope the few with an open mind can still read it before it disappears from view.

There's a thread on Trisquel forums about this.

https://trisquel.info/en/forum/ubun...roject-canonical-and-microsoft-what-your-idea

Wow...

Virtually everyone in that discussion comes across as a religious zealot with only tenuous connections to reality. That was actually painful to read.

There is no religion involved in this discussion, you are too close minded. Not everyone has the same opinions as you. They are discussing from the perspective of the people who brought bash and GNU to the world. People want to use GNU for cheap. They think GNU is a public service that is owed to them. They can't understand the restrictions on it but they are OK with Windows EULA. They think it's fair that Microsoft just take GNU but the wine team has to reverse engineer their code and they call name on anyone who doesn't agree, even the ones who created GNU. The irony is when they call them religious zealots or go as far as calling them 'entitled' and whiny.

Yeah, they're discussing from the perspective of people who think anyone who disagrees with their philosophy is immoral, abusive, and dangerous. You know, like a a religion. And there are a couple of people in that discussion who appear to have elevated RMS to the level of infallible demigod/prophet. I'd say that the group involved in that discussion meets at least two and arguably three of the definitions for religion given here.

The idea that Microsoft including these tools in Windows is some kind of giant secret plan to destroy free software makes zero sense, yet nearly everyone in that discussion believes that it is such a secret plan, and the few who disagree plainly still think that is a reasonable suspicion to have. I do not recall a single person in that discussion providing any evidence of such a plan or explanation on how such a plan would work, beyond "It's Microsoft so it must be evil". They have bought into their religious dogma that Microsoft is evil so heavily that they are no longer capable of rationally evaluating anything that involves Microsoft. That's why I called them zealots.

And yet they made some good points but you dismissed them as zealots, the same way you accuse them of dismissing Microsoft as evil. Instead you should join the discussion and expose your opinion in a civil way. Name calling doesn't make you right.

My favorite 'good' point, creme de la creme of conspiracy reasoning:

"It is possible that there is an evil hidden plan behind all that. But I do not see it. It may simply be that MS makes a strategical mistake that benefits the free software movement."

People have been using GNUsoftware on Windows for ages i.e. GIMP or R. No people were harmed during that process. Except for those poor souls that were told that GIMP is just like Adobe Photoshop, but for free.

 

[Br.Bill]

xWidget[/url]":gfjyuz97]Also, don't Macs ship with Ruby? Pretty sure it's how I installed Brew and thus Node.

Edit: I forgot mine was provisioned before I got it so I may be wrong.

Edit2: Sounds like they do. I'm not the biggest Mac proponent, but it's a far cry from being "a pain on every platform"

You're absolutely right. My company has depended on built-in ruby on OS X since 2008. Sure, it's always way behind the latest stable ruby general release, but cutting-edge ruby development isn't part of our charter; cross-platform scripting is. For linux, we simply install ruby with yum or whatever. For Windows, what a gigantic pain it is. Building a ruby on each Windows system is nontrivial and building a relocatable Windows ruby is even more painful.

But now there's Traveling Ruby: https://phusion.github.io/traveling-ruby/ . You can bet we'll be moving to that.

 

[ADGrant]

jballou[/url]":29y6434y]I hate to be nitpicky, but I'm pretty sure that saying that OSX is based on FreeBSD incorrect. OSX has roots in Unix and BSD, but it is quite distinct from either in philosophy, design, and implementation. Darwin is a blend of Unix, NextStep, BSD, Mach, and a bunch of other pieces assembled to a mostly POSIX implementation of their own OS. If I recall, Apple did hire one of the early BSD developers to tighten up and integrate the post-AT&T split stuff that Next hadn't yet done, but other than that my understanding is there is no real link between the two beyond the shared code and POSIX aspirations.

Darwin is Unix and is certified as such. It is derived from Mach at the kernel level but at the library and command line utility level it is a version of the BSD code base and is also Open Source. On top Darwin is the rest of OS-X such as the Cocoa frameworks that originated in NextStep.

 

[KnightRAF]

agrouf[/url]":2n0od9qv]

KnightRAF[/url]":2n0od9qv]

agrouf[/url]":2n0od9qv]

KnightRAF[/url]":2n0od9qv]

enduzzer[/url]":2n0od9qv]

agrouf[/url]":2n0od9qv]In a way that's a failing of the GPL. Maybe it's time for GPL v4. GNU is technically a good system but many people forget or don't care it's about freedom first and foremost. Running GNU on Windows defeats the purpose of GNU.
I know the Ars community doesn't care about freedom and I fully expect a rain of downvotes but I hope the few with an open mind can still read it before it disappears from view.

There's a thread on Trisquel forums about this.

https://trisquel.info/en/forum/ubun...roject-canonical-and-microsoft-what-your-idea

Wow...

Virtually everyone in that discussion comes across as a religious zealot with only tenuous connections to reality. That was actually painful to read.

There is no religion involved in this discussion, you are too close minded. Not everyone has the same opinions as you. They are discussing from the perspective of the people who brought bash and GNU to the world. People want to use GNU for cheap. They think GNU is a public service that is owed to them. They can't understand the restrictions on it but they are OK with Windows EULA. They think it's fair that Microsoft just take GNU but the wine team has to reverse engineer their code and they call name on anyone who doesn't agree, even the ones who created GNU. The irony is when they call them religious zealots or go as far as calling them 'entitled' and whiny.

Yeah, they're discussing from the perspective of people who think anyone who disagrees with their philosophy is immoral, abusive, and dangerous. You know, like a a religion. And there are a couple of people in that discussion who appear to have elevated RMS to the level of infallible demigod/prophet. I'd say that the group involved in that discussion meets at least two and arguably three of the definitions for religion given here.

The idea that Microsoft including these tools in Windows is some kind of giant secret plan to destroy free software makes zero sense, yet nearly everyone in that discussion believes that it is such a secret plan, and the few who disagree plainly still think that is a reasonable suspicion to have. I do not recall a single person in that discussion providing any evidence of such a plan or explanation on how such a plan would work, beyond "It's Microsoft so it must be evil". They have bought into their religious dogma that Microsoft is evil so heavily that they are no longer capable of rationally evaluating anything that involves Microsoft. That's why I called them zealots.

And yet they made some good points but you dismissed them as zealots, the same way you accuse them of dismissing Microsoft as evil. Instead you should join the discussion and expose your opinion in a civil way. Name calling doesn't make you right.

They made zero good points. They made zero even mediocre points. They just engaged in a gigantic evidence-free conspiracy circle-jerk about how evil Microsoft is and there must be some dastardly motive hidden in this action even though none of them can see it because Microsoft is involved. Joining the discussion would be less than pointless because they are obviously not interested in having an actual discussion so much as reminding themselves how evil Microsoft is and how much better they are than everyone else because they don't use it's products.

 

[HungryBadger]

agrouf[/url]":3j580s3u]
If you don't feel abused by Windows, you are not the target of GNU. GNU is all about free/libre software. It's OK, nobody is asking you to use it. You are happy with Windows and that's fine. GNU is made by and for people who are not happy with the legal and technical restrictions in proprietary software.

But are happy with the even stricter legal and technical restriction in GNU software. Because reasons. Oh and, er, freedom (as long as it's only so much freedom)?

 

[vartec]

agrouf[/url]":wjld1wxf]
If you don't feel abused by Windows, you are not the target of GNU. GNU is all about free/libre software. It's OK, nobody is asking you to use it. You are happy with Windows and that's fine. GNU is made by and for people who are not happy with the legal and technical restrictions in proprietary software. We are glad that you use Windows and don't feel abused. Now running GNU on Windows raises some concerns to some of us. For a start I believe proper credit should be given where it is due. It's GNU software, not "Linux" and it's packaged by Debian, not Canonical or Ubuntu.

Well, you can always enjoy all the GNU/Hurd powered ultrabooks ;-)

 

[jadedat]

KnightRAF[/url]":3pkoj1zj]
Yeah, they're discussing from the perspective of people who think anyone who disagrees with their philosophy is immoral, abusive, and dangerous. You know, like a a religion. And there are a couple of people in that discussion who appear to have elevated RMS to the level of infallible demigod/prophet. I'd say that the group involved in that discussion meets at least two and arguably three of the definitions for religion given here.

The idea that Microsoft including these tools in Windows is some kind of giant secret plan to destroy free software makes zero sense, yet nearly everyone in that discussion believes that it is such a secret plan, and the few who disagree plainly still think that is a reasonable suspicion to have. I do not recall a single person in that discussion providing any evidence of such a plan or explanation on how such a plan would work, beyond "It's Microsoft so it must be evil". They have bought into their religious dogma that Microsoft is evil so heavily that they are no longer capable of rationally evaluating anything that involves Microsoft. That's why I called them zealots.

The Free Software crowd isn't similar to a religion-- I've only seen the batshit insane minority say things like "anyone who disagrees with their philosophy is immoral, abusive, and dangerous." You can find the batshit insane people in any crowd, though. Of course, a pretty good amount of Free Software users look up to Stallman as a genius that sees these issues from a perspective most people wouldn't otherwise consider. You can find how often they disagree with him in certain areas of Free Software and such pretty frequently on the Trisquel forums, so it's not like they consider him a PC-Jesus.
And I agree, the idea that Microsoft is trying to crush Free Software or GNU/Linux is pretty ridiculous. MSFT's hitting OSX and GNU/Linux where it hurts (education, academics leaning toward computer sciences, etc), but that's just business, competition.

 

[KnightRAF]

jadedat[/url]":1cshwgvd]

KnightRAF[/url]":1cshwgvd]
Yeah, they're discussing from the perspective of people who think anyone who disagrees with their philosophy is immoral, abusive, and dangerous. You know, like a a religion. And there are a couple of people in that discussion who appear to have elevated RMS to the level of infallible demigod/prophet. I'd say that the group involved in that discussion meets at least two and arguably three of the definitions for religion given here.

The idea that Microsoft including these tools in Windows is some kind of giant secret plan to destroy free software makes zero sense, yet nearly everyone in that discussion believes that it is such a secret plan, and the few who disagree plainly still think that is a reasonable suspicion to have. I do not recall a single person in that discussion providing any evidence of such a plan or explanation on how such a plan would work, beyond "It's Microsoft so it must be evil". They have bought into their religious dogma that Microsoft is evil so heavily that they are no longer capable of rationally evaluating anything that involves Microsoft. That's why I called them zealots.

The Free Software crowd isn't similar to a religion-- I've only seen the batshit insane minority say things like "anyone who disagrees with their philosophy is immoral, abusive, and dangerous." You can find the batshit insane people in any crowd, though. Of course, a pretty good amount of Free Software users look up to Stallman as a genius that sees these issues from a perspective most people wouldn't otherwise consider. You can find how often they disagree with him in certain areas of Free Software and such pretty frequently on the Trisquel forums, so it's not like they consider him a PC-Jesus.
And I agree, the idea that Microsoft is trying to crush Free Software or GNU/Linux is pretty ridiculous. MSFT's hitting OSX and GNU/Linux where it hurts (education, academics leaning toward computer sciences, etc), but that's just business, competition.

Have you ever read the philosophy pages on gnu.org? I pulled that basically straight from there. They consider all proprietary software to be abusive to its users and unjust and the purveyors of such software to be unethical. They consider everything from iOS to Chrome to Windows to any SaaS to be malware. They consider software piracy to be less evil than abiding by the license agreement not to redistribute proprietary software, though at least they consider both more evil than just not using such software. They consider it immoral to teach someone how to use proprietary software. In short, they're nuts. Which isn't really surprising since RMS is, in addition to being a genius, more than a little crazy and he's had a large roll in shaping the philosophy.

 

[onpon4]

KnightRAF[/url]":3ibufap6]yet nearly everyone in that discussion believes that it is such a secret plan, and the few who disagree plainly still think that is a reasonable suspicion to have.

I feel like I should respond to this, because I am one of the two people who most strongly expressed a dissenting opinion in this thread (the other was Magic Banana; I can't comment on his views).

Personally, I do not believe for a second that the suspicion echoed throughout this thread is in any way remotely reasonable. The first post I made in this thread compared what I was seeing to conspiracy theories. I also agree with the prevalent opinion expressed here that this thread is an embarrassing trove of zealotry. To be honest, I actually wanted to comment much sooner than I did, but I was so shocked by how irrationally people who I generally regard as intelligent peers (even if I disagree with them on various issues) were responding, I had to think for a couple days about how to do so.

That also brings me to another point: the outpouring of this thread shocked me into temporary silence. I would not be surprised if I was not the only one. Additionally, I note that many of the messages come from rather new users; some of them only joined in the last couple of months. So please do not judge our entire community (or the entire libre software movement) based on this thread and the people who posted in it. The fact is that we are a very diverse community with all kinds of viewpoints, and I think the announcement that some GNU software would be running on Windows just turned out to be a honeypot for those of us with more zealous and conspiratorial beliefs. I think the same can happen in any sufficiently large community.

 

[d4Njv]

KnightRAF[/url]":33zm6ahu]

Have you ever read the philosophy pages on gnu.org? I pulled that basically straight from there. They consider all proprietary software to be abusive to its users and unjust and the purveyors of such software to be unethical. They consider everything from iOS to Chrome to Windows to any SaaS to be malware. They consider software piracy to be less evil than abiding by the license agreement not to redistribute proprietary software...

Where do they write that?

 

[onpon4]

KnightRAF[/url]":1biu4wrk]Have you ever read the philosophy pages on gnu.org? I pulled that basically straight from there. They consider all proprietary software to be abusive to its users and unjust and the purveyors of such software to be unethical. They consider everything from iOS to Chrome to Windows to any SaaS to be malware. They consider software piracy to be less evil than abiding by the license agreement not to redistribute proprietary software, though at least they consider both more evil than just not using such software. They consider it immoral to teach someone how to use proprietary software. In short, they're nuts. Which isn't really surprising since RMS is, in addition to being a genius, more than a little crazy and he's had a large roll in shaping the philosophy.

Most of what you say here are positions. Having a position does not make you religious. Regular, secular political movements have positions, too. You call the positions of RMS and the FSF "nuts", but even if this unsubstantiated claim is true, it's insubstantial to the claim that the libre software movement is religious.

It would be a religion if everyone in the libre software movement considered the writings of RMS to be holy scripture that was infallable. I do not, and many others do not. Disagreements abound in the libre software movement. I can't speak for others, but these are some of my disagreements with RMS and the FSF:

* I do not agree with much of anything on the "words to avoid" page.
* I do not think outreach programs (e.g. for women) are a worthwhile effort.
* I do not agree that Debian is unfit for recommendation for ethical reasons.
* I do not agree that "works of opinion" should have copyright licenses applied to them that prohibit modifications. In fact, I think this is unethical.
* I do not agree that textbooks should be classified in the same way as software (though I do agree that they should be libre, simply because I think every work should be libre).
* I do not agree that copyright should be preserved for the sake of copyleft.
* I do not agree that Mozilla's software must be rejected because of Mozilla's trademark policy (though I do agree that the trademark policy is bad).
* In a private email, RMS suggested to me that playing proprietary video games on a friend's computer because that's what your friend wants to play is tantamount to pointing and laughing at a friend who is getting drunk. I do not consider this to be a reasonable comparison.
* I do not agree that LibreJS does any good whatsoever.
* I do not agree that the GNU Free Documentation License is a good license for manuals, or even that it is a libre license.

I could go on and on.

 

[onpon4]

d4Njv[/url]":2lgfu627]

KnightRAF[/url]":2lgfu627]

Have you ever read the philosophy pages on gnu.org? I pulled that basically straight from there. They consider all proprietary software to be abusive to its users and unjust and the purveyors of such software to be unethical. They consider everything from iOS to Chrome to Windows to any SaaS to be malware. They consider software piracy to be less evil than abiding by the license agreement not to redistribute proprietary software...

Where do they write that?

I don't think that's actually written down anywhere, but it is legitimately something RMS believes. He commonly expresses this belief in his talks about libre software. It's usually formulated like this (I'm doing my best to transcribe an instance I saw from memory):

"If you accept a program which doesn't have freedom 2, you run the risk of facing a moral dilemma that can happen at any moment. If your good friend says, 'That program is nice, can I have a copy?', you can either give your friend a copy and violate the license of the program, or refuse your friend a copy and comply with the license of the program. When faced with a moral dilemma, you ought to choose the lesser of two evils, which is to give your friend a copy and violate the license of the program. Why is that the lesser evil? Because if you can't help but do wrong to one or the other, it's less bad to do wrong to someone who deserves it because he has done you wrong. We can assume that your good friend is normally deserving of your cooperation, but the developer of the program has deliberately attacked the social solidarity of your community. But being the lesser evil doesn't make it good. It's never good to make and agreement and break it, even when the agreement is inherently evil and keeping it is worse than breaking it; still, it does not rise to the level of good."

 

[KnightRAF]

d4Njv[/url]":4uadm8m7]

KnightRAF[/url]":4uadm8m7]

Have you ever read the philosophy pages on gnu.org? I pulled that basically straight from there. They consider all proprietary software to be abusive to its users and unjust and the purveyors of such software to be unethical. They consider everything from iOS to Chrome to Windows to any SaaS to be malware. They consider software piracy to be less evil than abiding by the license agreement not to redistribute proprietary software...

Where do they write that?

See here: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-soft ... rtant.html

This is the relevant portion:

When you use proprietary programs or SaaSS, first of all you do wrong to yourself, because it gives some entity unjust power over you. For your own sake, you should escape. It also wrongs others if you make a promise not to share. It is evil to keep such a promise, and a lesser evil to break it; to be truly upright, you should not make the promise at all.

 

[KnightRAF]

onpon4[/url]":12pwat5n]

KnightRAF[/url]":12pwat5n]yet nearly everyone in that discussion believes that it is such a secret plan, and the few who disagree plainly still think that is a reasonable suspicion to have.

I feel like I should respond to this, because I am one of the two people who most strongly expressed a dissenting opinion in this thread (the other was Magic Banana; I can't comment on his views).

Personally, I do not believe for a second that the suspicion echoed throughout this thread is in any way remotely reasonable. The first post I made in this thread compared what I was seeing to conspiracy theories. I also agree with the prevalent opinion expressed here that this thread is an embarrassing trove of zealotry. To be honest, I actually wanted to comment much sooner than I did, but I was so shocked by how irrationally people who I generally regard as intelligent peers (even if I disagree with them on various issues) were responding, I had to think for a couple days about how to do so.

That also brings me to another point: the outpouring of this thread shocked me into temporary silence. I would not be surprised if I was not the only one. Additionally, I note that many of the messages come from rather new users; some of them only joined in the last couple of months. So please do not judge our entire community (or the entire libre software movement) based on this thread and the people who posted in it. The fact is that we are a very diverse community with all kinds of viewpoints, and I think the announcement that some GNU software would be running on Windows just turned out to be a honeypot for those of us with more zealous and conspiratorial beliefs. I think the same can happen in any sufficiently large community.

I owe you an apology, there should have been a second qualifier on that sentence to indicate there was at least someone in that discussion who thought the conspiracy suspicion was unreasonable. I got some of your posts and Magic Banana's posts confused when I was reading that apparently :facepalm:

 

[hechacker1]

DrPizza[/url]":baequcay]

twostep[/url]":baequcay]I still haven't seen any discussion of filesystem issues. A ton of Linux software depends on doing things like deleting an open file, which you can't do on NTFS (as far as I know).

Pretty sure this is possible in the kernel, just not in Win32.

It is.There's many hacking and malware removal tools that support unhooking the process from the file and killing it. I used to use them all the time to clean up Windows malware.

It's just that Microsoft disapproves of those tools because they use hidden internal system calls intended for Microsoft only.

Now my question is can I do "rm -rf /" and actually delete Windows system files. I doubt it.

 

[KnightRAF]

onpon4[/url]":1vq62vfg]

KnightRAF[/url]":1vq62vfg]Have you ever read the philosophy pages on gnu.org? I pulled that basically straight from there. They consider all proprietary software to be abusive to its users and unjust and the purveyors of such software to be unethical. They consider everything from iOS to Chrome to Windows to any SaaS to be malware. They consider software piracy to be less evil than abiding by the license agreement not to redistribute proprietary software, though at least they consider both more evil than just not using such software. They consider it immoral to teach someone how to use proprietary software. In short, they're nuts. Which isn't really surprising since RMS is, in addition to being a genius, more than a little crazy and he's had a large roll in shaping the philosophy.

Most of what you say here are positions. Having a position does not make you religious. Regular, secular political movements have positions, too. You call the positions of RMS and the FSF "nuts", but even if this unsubstantiated claim is true, it's insubstantial to the claim that the libre software movement is religious.

It would be a religion if everyone in the libre software movement considered the writings of RMS to be holy scripture that was infallable. I do not, and many others do not. Disagreements abound in the libre software movement. I can't speak for others, but these are some of my disagreements with RMS and the FSF:

* I do not agree with much of anything on the "words to avoid" page.
* I do not think outreach programs (e.g. for women) are a worthwhile effort.
* I do not agree that Debian is unfit for recommendation for ethical reasons.
* I do not agree that "works of opinion" should have copyright licenses applied to them that prohibit modifications. In fact, I think this is unethical.
* I do not agree that textbooks should be classified in the same way as software (though I do agree that they should be libre, simply because I think every work should be libre).
* I do not agree that copyright should be preserved for the sake of copyleft.
* I do not agree that Mozilla's software must be rejected because of Mozilla's trademark policy (though I do agree that the trademark policy is bad).
* In a private email, RMS suggested to me that playing proprietary video games on a friend's computer because that's what your friend wants to play is tantamount to pointing and laughing at a friend who is getting drunk. I do not consider this to be a reasonable comparison.
* I do not agree that LibreJS does any good whatsoever.
* I do not agree that the GNU Free Documentation License is a good license for manuals, or even that it is a libre license.

I could go on and on.

I never said the entire libre software movement was a religion. However, I do believe that some people (like the zealots in that discussion) have turned the libre software movement's positions into their religion. Hence their behaving like zealots toward everyone who disagrees with the positions that they have turned into their personal dogma. The entire free software community does not have to have turned their positions into a religion for some subset of the community to have done so.

As for me calling the FSF nuts, that's based totally on the contents of the philosophy pages at gnu.org. I had never seen them before today (someone linked into them earlier in the discussion). Personally, between the name calling (Amazon Swindle", "game cr...aaps", and "music screaming"), scare quotes in every third sentence, and the newspeak-esque replacing of commonly understood terms because they don't like how those commonly understood terms make people think, I find them almost as crazy as the zealots in that discussion.

 

[agrouf]

KnightRAF[/url]":kt6vasoe]

agrouf[/url]":kt6vasoe]

KnightRAF[/url]":kt6vasoe]

agrouf[/url]":kt6vasoe]

KnightRAF[/url]":kt6vasoe]

enduzzer[/url]":kt6vasoe]
There's a thread on Trisquel forums about this.

https://trisquel.info/en/forum/ubun...roject-canonical-and-microsoft-what-your-idea

Wow...

Virtually everyone in that discussion comes across as a religious zealot with only tenuous connections to reality. That was actually painful to read.

There is no religion involved in this discussion, you are too close minded. Not everyone has the same opinions as you. They are discussing from the perspective of the people who brought bash and GNU to the world. People want to use GNU for cheap. They think GNU is a public service that is owed to them. They can't understand the restrictions on it but they are OK with Windows EULA. They think it's fair that Microsoft just take GNU but the wine team has to reverse engineer their code and they call name on anyone who doesn't agree, even the ones who created GNU. The irony is when they call them religious zealots or go as far as calling them 'entitled' and whiny.

Yeah, they're discussing from the perspective of people who think anyone who disagrees with their philosophy is immoral, abusive, and dangerous. You know, like a a religion. And there are a couple of people in that discussion who appear to have elevated RMS to the level of infallible demigod/prophet. I'd say that the group involved in that discussion meets at least two and arguably three of the definitions for religion given here.

The idea that Microsoft including these tools in Windows is some kind of giant secret plan to destroy free software makes zero sense, yet nearly everyone in that discussion believes that it is such a secret plan, and the few who disagree plainly still think that is a reasonable suspicion to have. I do not recall a single person in that discussion providing any evidence of such a plan or explanation on how such a plan would work, beyond "It's Microsoft so it must be evil". They have bought into their religious dogma that Microsoft is evil so heavily that they are no longer capable of rationally evaluating anything that involves Microsoft. That's why I called them zealots.

And yet they made some good points but you dismissed them as zealots, the same way you accuse them of dismissing Microsoft as evil. Instead you should join the discussion and expose your opinion in a civil way. Name calling doesn't make you right.

They made zero good points. They made zero even mediocre points. They just engaged in a gigantic evidence-free conspiracy circle-jerk about how evil Microsoft is and there must be some dastardly motive hidden in this action even though none of them can see it because Microsoft is involved. Joining the discussion would be less than pointless because they are obviously not interested in having an actual discussion so much as reminding themselves how evil Microsoft is and how much better they are than everyone else because they don't use it's products.

Then please don't comment at all.
"This community is nuts" is not a helpful argument in any way. "I disagree with them because ..." is better. They are not nuts because they have different opinions than yours.

 

[agrouf]

HungryBadger[/url]":3hep2b5g]

agrouf[/url]":3hep2b5g]
If you don't feel abused by Windows, you are not the target of GNU. GNU is all about free/libre software. It's OK, nobody is asking you to use it. You are happy with Windows and that's fine. GNU is made by and for people who are not happy with the legal and technical restrictions in proprietary software.

But are happy with the even stricter legal and technical restriction in GNU software. Because reasons. Oh and, er, freedom (as long as it's only so much freedom)?

GNU legal and technical restrictions are obviously less strict than Windows'.
Why you think the wine team spent 15 years reverse engineering Windows while Microsoft is just going to distribute GNU unmodified? I don't know where you got that idea but I never saw this point of view before.

 

[agrouf]

KnightRAF[/url]":2v9nd06c]

onpon4[/url]":2v9nd06c]

KnightRAF[/url]":2v9nd06c]Have you ever read the philosophy pages on gnu.org? I pulled that basically straight from there. They consider all proprietary software to be abusive to its users and unjust and the purveyors of such software to be unethical. They consider everything from iOS to Chrome to Windows to any SaaS to be malware. They consider software piracy to be less evil than abiding by the license agreement not to redistribute proprietary software, though at least they consider both more evil than just not using such software. They consider it immoral to teach someone how to use proprietary software. In short, they're nuts. Which isn't really surprising since RMS is, in addition to being a genius, more than a little crazy and he's had a large roll in shaping the philosophy.

Most of what you say here are positions. Having a position does not make you religious. Regular, secular political movements have positions, too. You call the positions of RMS and the FSF "nuts", but even if this unsubstantiated claim is true, it's insubstantial to the claim that the libre software movement is religious.

It would be a religion if everyone in the libre software movement considered the writings of RMS to be holy scripture that was infallable. I do not, and many others do not. Disagreements abound in the libre software movement. I can't speak for others, but these are some of my disagreements with RMS and the FSF:

* I do not agree with much of anything on the "words to avoid" page.
* I do not think outreach programs (e.g. for women) are a worthwhile effort.
* I do not agree that Debian is unfit for recommendation for ethical reasons.
* I do not agree that "works of opinion" should have copyright licenses applied to them that prohibit modifications. In fact, I think this is unethical.
* I do not agree that textbooks should be classified in the same way as software (though I do agree that they should be libre, simply because I think every work should be libre).
* I do not agree that copyright should be preserved for the sake of copyleft.
* I do not agree that Mozilla's software must be rejected because of Mozilla's trademark policy (though I do agree that the trademark policy is bad).
* In a private email, RMS suggested to me that playing proprietary video games on a friend's computer because that's what your friend wants to play is tantamount to pointing and laughing at a friend who is getting drunk. I do not consider this to be a reasonable comparison.
* I do not agree that LibreJS does any good whatsoever.
* I do not agree that the GNU Free Documentation License is a good license for manuals, or even that it is a libre license.

I could go on and on.

I never said the entire libre software movement was a religion. However, I do believe that some people (like the zealots in that discussion) have turned the libre software movement's positions into their religion. Hence their behaving like zealots toward everyone who disagrees with the positions that they have turned into their personal dogma. The entire free software community does not have to have turned their positions into a religion for some subset of the community to have done so.

As for me calling the FSF nuts, that's based totally on the contents of the philosophy pages at gnu.org. I had never seen them before today (someone linked into them earlier in the discussion). Personally, between the name calling (Amazon Swindle", "game cr...aaps", and "music screaming"), scare quotes in every third sentence, and the newspeak-esque replacing of commonly understood terms because they don't like how those commonly understood terms make people think, I find them almost as crazy as the zealots in that discussion.

With all respect, they look nuts to you because they go against your own personal dogmas. You don't seem to have any reason to have that opinion, just that it's "nuts". It's your dogma actually. Proprietary software is ok and anybody who think it's not is 'nuts'. But you have no reason to think that, just that it's the way it is. You are actually as religious about that as you accuse them to be.

 

[KnightRAF]

agrouf[/url]":3lv1lzou]

KnightRAF[/url]":3lv1lzou]

agrouf[/url]":3lv1lzou]

KnightRAF[/url]":3lv1lzou]

Yeah, they're discussing from the perspective of people who think anyone who disagrees with their philosophy is immoral, abusive, and dangerous. You know, like a a religion. And there are a couple of people in that discussion who appear to have elevated RMS to the level of infallible demigod/prophet. I'd say that the group involved in that discussion meets at least two and arguably three of the definitions for religion given here.

The idea that Microsoft including these tools in Windows is some kind of giant secret plan to destroy free software makes zero sense, yet nearly everyone in that discussion believes that it is such a secret plan, and the few who disagree plainly still think that is a reasonable suspicion to have. I do not recall a single person in that discussion providing any evidence of such a plan or explanation on how such a plan would work, beyond "It's Microsoft so it must be evil". They have bought into their religious dogma that Microsoft is evil so heavily that they are no longer capable of rationally evaluating anything that involves Microsoft. That's why I called them zealots.

And yet they made some good points but you dismissed them as zealots, the same way you accuse them of dismissing Microsoft as evil. Instead you should join the discussion and expose your opinion in a civil way. Name calling doesn't make you right.

They made zero good points. They made zero even mediocre points. They just engaged in a gigantic evidence-free conspiracy circle-jerk about how evil Microsoft is and there must be some dastardly motive hidden in this action even though none of them can see it because Microsoft is involved. Joining the discussion would be less than pointless because they are obviously not interested in having an actual discussion so much as reminding themselves how evil Microsoft is and how much better they are than everyone else because they don't use it's products.

Then please don't comment at all.
"This community is nuts" is not a helpful argument in any way. "I disagree with them because ..." is better. They are not nuts because they have different opinions than yours.

No they are not nuts because they have different opinions than I do. They are nuts because their opinions have led them to believe that there is a secret conspiracy that even they admit they can see no evidence for but which must be present because of who the actors involved are. They are nuts because they believe that anyone who disagrees with them is inherently unethical and abusive towards themselves and/or others. They are nuts because in at least the case of one of the people in that discussion they have decided that the word of a single human being is to be taken as the infallible last word on a topic.

 

[onpon4]

They are nuts because their opinions have led them to believe that there is a secret conspiracy that even they admit they can see no evidence for but which must be present because of who the actors involved are.

That's fairly reasonable. But of course, this is only certain people. I don't think RMS or any members of the FSF believe in conspiracy theories (though RMS does believe some very wrong and sometimes silly things; most of these views are on stallman.org).

They are nuts because they believe that anyone who disagrees with them is inherently unethical and abusive towards themselves and/or others.

This is a misunderstanding. It is not the position of the FSF or RMS, or anyone I have encountered in the libre software movement, that disagreement is unethical. What's considered by the libre software movement to be unethical is writing proprietary software, and to a lesser extent, steering people toward loss of liberty. Some also take that second point to the extreme where recommending anything that has any proprietary software in it is unethical, but personally, I weigh actions in context. Android isn't perfect, but it's better than iOS or Windows, so I'd recommend an iThing user switch to a similar Android device any day.

They are nuts because in at least the case of one of the people in that discussion they have decided that the word of a single human being is to be taken as the infallible last word on a topic.

I think that person you are referring to (who I was arguing with) is the only person I've seen who holds RMS in such high regard. He's quite new to the community (he joined just last month), so I think he might just be young and naïve.

 

[DKlimax]

agrouf[/url]":2tl7x2lu]

KnightRAF[/url]":2tl7x2lu]

onpon4[/url]":2tl7x2lu]

KnightRAF[/url]":2tl7x2lu]Have you ever read the philosophy pages on gnu.org? I pulled that basically straight from there. They consider all proprietary software to be abusive to its users and unjust and the purveyors of such software to be unethical. They consider everything from iOS to Chrome to Windows to any SaaS to be malware. They consider software piracy to be less evil than abiding by the license agreement not to redistribute proprietary software, though at least they consider both more evil than just not using such software. They consider it immoral to teach someone how to use proprietary software. In short, they're nuts. Which isn't really surprising since RMS is, in addition to being a genius, more than a little crazy and he's had a large roll in shaping the philosophy.

Most of what you say here are positions. Having a position does not make you religious. Regular, secular political movements have positions, too. You call the positions of RMS and the FSF "nuts", but even if this unsubstantiated claim is true, it's insubstantial to the claim that the libre software movement is religious.

It would be a religion if everyone in the libre software movement considered the writings of RMS to be holy scripture that was infallable. I do not, and many others do not. Disagreements abound in the libre software movement. I can't speak for others, but these are some of my disagreements with RMS and the FSF:

* I do not agree with much of anything on the "words to avoid" page.
* I do not think outreach programs (e.g. for women) are a worthwhile effort.
* I do not agree that Debian is unfit for recommendation for ethical reasons.
* I do not agree that "works of opinion" should have copyright licenses applied to them that prohibit modifications. In fact, I think this is unethical.
* I do not agree that textbooks should be classified in the same way as software (though I do agree that they should be libre, simply because I think every work should be libre).
* I do not agree that copyright should be preserved for the sake of copyleft.
* I do not agree that Mozilla's software must be rejected because of Mozilla's trademark policy (though I do agree that the trademark policy is bad).
* In a private email, RMS suggested to me that playing proprietary video games on a friend's computer because that's what your friend wants to play is tantamount to pointing and laughing at a friend who is getting drunk. I do not consider this to be a reasonable comparison.
* I do not agree that LibreJS does any good whatsoever.
* I do not agree that the GNU Free Documentation License is a good license for manuals, or even that it is a libre license.

I could go on and on.

I never said the entire libre software movement was a religion. However, I do believe that some people (like the zealots in that discussion) have turned the libre software movement's positions into their religion. Hence their behaving like zealots toward everyone who disagrees with the positions that they have turned into their personal dogma. The entire free software community does not have to have turned their positions into a religion for some subset of the community to have done so.

As for me calling the FSF nuts, that's based totally on the contents of the philosophy pages at gnu.org. I had never seen them before today (someone linked into them earlier in the discussion). Personally, between the name calling (Amazon Swindle", "game cr...aaps", and "music screaming"), scare quotes in every third sentence, and the newspeak-esque replacing of commonly understood terms because they don't like how those commonly understood terms make people think, I find them almost as crazy as the zealots in that discussion.

With all respect, they look nuts to you because they go against your own personal dogmas. You don't seem to have any reason to have that opinion, just that it's "nuts". It's your dogma actually. Proprietary software is ok and anybody who think it's not is 'nuts'. But you have no reason to think that, just that it's the way it is. You are actually as religious about that as you accuse them to be.

Either you don't know meaning of word "dogma" or you are grossly abusing it in illogical, irrational wrong way in an attempt to degrade and drag down other's position to same level as yours.

Pretty sure it is logical fallacy (False equivalence IIRC). Not bright idea. It's not working...

 

[agrouf]

KnightRAF[/url]":b4ntd5o5]

agrouf[/url]":b4ntd5o5]

KnightRAF[/url]":b4ntd5o5]

agrouf[/url]":b4ntd5o5]

KnightRAF[/url]":b4ntd5o5]

Yeah, they're discussing from the perspective of people who think anyone who disagrees with their philosophy is immoral, abusive, and dangerous. You know, like a a religion. And there are a couple of people in that discussion who appear to have elevated RMS to the level of infallible demigod/prophet. I'd say that the group involved in that discussion meets at least two and arguably three of the definitions for religion given here.

The idea that Microsoft including these tools in Windows is some kind of giant secret plan to destroy free software makes zero sense, yet nearly everyone in that discussion believes that it is such a secret plan, and the few who disagree plainly still think that is a reasonable suspicion to have. I do not recall a single person in that discussion providing any evidence of such a plan or explanation on how such a plan would work, beyond "It's Microsoft so it must be evil". They have bought into their religious dogma that Microsoft is evil so heavily that they are no longer capable of rationally evaluating anything that involves Microsoft. That's why I called them zealots.

And yet they made some good points but you dismissed them as zealots, the same way you accuse them of dismissing Microsoft as evil. Instead you should join the discussion and expose your opinion in a civil way. Name calling doesn't make you right.

They made zero good points. They made zero even mediocre points. They just engaged in a gigantic evidence-free conspiracy circle-jerk about how evil Microsoft is and there must be some dastardly motive hidden in this action even though none of them can see it because Microsoft is involved. Joining the discussion would be less than pointless because they are obviously not interested in having an actual discussion so much as reminding themselves how evil Microsoft is and how much better they are than everyone else because they don't use it's products.

Then please don't comment at all.
"This community is nuts" is not a helpful argument in any way. "I disagree with them because ..." is better. They are not nuts because they have different opinions than yours.

No they are not nuts because they have different opinions than I do. They are nuts because their opinions have led them to believe that there is a secret conspiracy that even they admit they can see no evidence for but which must be present because of who the actors involved are. They are nuts because they believe that anyone who disagrees with them is inherently unethical and abusive towards themselves and/or others. They are nuts because in at least the case of one of the people in that discussion they have decided that the word of a single human being is to be taken as the infallible last word on a topic.

I think you are generalizing a bit too much. There are one or two sentences that made you dismiss the whole discussion as nuts but there are some good points that you should consider.

 

[agrouf]

DKlimax[/url]":3t0uj6f3]

agrouf[/url]":3t0uj6f3]

KnightRAF[/url]":3t0uj6f3]

onpon4[/url]":3t0uj6f3]

KnightRAF[/url]":3t0uj6f3]Have you ever read the philosophy pages on gnu.org? I pulled that basically straight from there. They consider all proprietary software to be abusive to its users and unjust and the purveyors of such software to be unethical. They consider everything from iOS to Chrome to Windows to any SaaS to be malware. They consider software piracy to be less evil than abiding by the license agreement not to redistribute proprietary software, though at least they consider both more evil than just not using such software. They consider it immoral to teach someone how to use proprietary software. In short, they're nuts. Which isn't really surprising since RMS is, in addition to being a genius, more than a little crazy and he's had a large roll in shaping the philosophy.

Most of what you say here are positions. Having a position does not make you religious. Regular, secular political movements have positions, too. You call the positions of RMS and the FSF "nuts", but even if this unsubstantiated claim is true, it's insubstantial to the claim that the libre software movement is religious.

It would be a religion if everyone in the libre software movement considered the writings of RMS to be holy scripture that was infallable. I do not, and many others do not. Disagreements abound in the libre software movement. I can't speak for others, but these are some of my disagreements with RMS and the FSF:

* I do not agree with much of anything on the "words to avoid" page.
* I do not think outreach programs (e.g. for women) are a worthwhile effort.
* I do not agree that Debian is unfit for recommendation for ethical reasons.
* I do not agree that "works of opinion" should have copyright licenses applied to them that prohibit modifications. In fact, I think this is unethical.
* I do not agree that textbooks should be classified in the same way as software (though I do agree that they should be libre, simply because I think every work should be libre).
* I do not agree that copyright should be preserved for the sake of copyleft.
* I do not agree that Mozilla's software must be rejected because of Mozilla's trademark policy (though I do agree that the trademark policy is bad).
* In a private email, RMS suggested to me that playing proprietary video games on a friend's computer because that's what your friend wants to play is tantamount to pointing and laughing at a friend who is getting drunk. I do not consider this to be a reasonable comparison.
* I do not agree that LibreJS does any good whatsoever.
* I do not agree that the GNU Free Documentation License is a good license for manuals, or even that it is a libre license.

I could go on and on.

I never said the entire libre software movement was a religion. However, I do believe that some people (like the zealots in that discussion) have turned the libre software movement's positions into their religion. Hence their behaving like zealots toward everyone who disagrees with the positions that they have turned into their personal dogma. The entire free software community does not have to have turned their positions into a religion for some subset of the community to have done so.

As for me calling the FSF nuts, that's based totally on the contents of the philosophy pages at gnu.org. I had never seen them before today (someone linked into them earlier in the discussion). Personally, between the name calling (Amazon Swindle", "game cr...aaps", and "music screaming"), scare quotes in every third sentence, and the newspeak-esque replacing of commonly understood terms because they don't like how those commonly understood terms make people think, I find them almost as crazy as the zealots in that discussion.

With all respect, they look nuts to you because they go against your own personal dogmas. You don't seem to have any reason to have that opinion, just that it's "nuts". It's your dogma actually. Proprietary software is ok and anybody who think it's not is 'nuts'. But you have no reason to think that, just that it's the way it is. You are actually as religious about that as you accuse them to be.

Either you don't know meaning of word "dogma" or you are grossly abusing it in illogical, irrational wrong way in an attempt to degrade and drag down other's position to same level as yours.

Pretty sure it is logical fallacy (False equivalence IIRC). Not bright idea. It's not working...

What I'm trying to say is that calling other people religious zealots or nuts does not constitute an argument, it's just mean. Btw you can stop downvoting anything you don't agree with already, it dorsn't matter at this page and it's just mean anyway.

 

[icejam_]

agrouf[/url]":6853krut]

DKlimax[/url]":6853krut]

agrouf[/url]":6853krut]

KnightRAF[/url]":6853krut]

onpon4[/url]":6853krut]

KnightRAF[/url]":6853krut]Have you ever read the philosophy pages on gnu.org? I pulled that basically straight from there. They consider all proprietary software to be abusive to its users and unjust and the purveyors of such software to be unethical. They consider everything from iOS to Chrome to Windows to any SaaS to be malware. They consider software piracy to be less evil than abiding by the license agreement not to redistribute proprietary software, though at least they consider both more evil than just not using such software. They consider it immoral to teach someone how to use proprietary software. In short, they're nuts. Which isn't really surprising since RMS is, in addition to being a genius, more than a little crazy and he's had a large roll in shaping the philosophy.

Most of what you say here are positions. Having a position does not make you religious. Regular, secular political movements have positions, too. You call the positions of RMS and the FSF "nuts", but even if this unsubstantiated claim is true, it's insubstantial to the claim that the libre software movement is religious.

It would be a religion if everyone in the libre software movement considered the writings of RMS to be holy scripture that was infallable. I do not, and many others do not. Disagreements abound in the libre software movement. I can't speak for others, but these are some of my disagreements with RMS and the FSF:

* I do not agree with much of anything on the "words to avoid" page.
* I do not think outreach programs (e.g. for women) are a worthwhile effort.
* I do not agree that Debian is unfit for recommendation for ethical reasons.
* I do not agree that "works of opinion" should have copyright licenses applied to them that prohibit modifications. In fact, I think this is unethical.
* I do not agree that textbooks should be classified in the same way as software (though I do agree that they should be libre, simply because I think every work should be libre).
* I do not agree that copyright should be preserved for the sake of copyleft.
* I do not agree that Mozilla's software must be rejected because of Mozilla's trademark policy (though I do agree that the trademark policy is bad).
* In a private email, RMS suggested to me that playing proprietary video games on a friend's computer because that's what your friend wants to play is tantamount to pointing and laughing at a friend who is getting drunk. I do not consider this to be a reasonable comparison.
* I do not agree that LibreJS does any good whatsoever.
* I do not agree that the GNU Free Documentation License is a good license for manuals, or even that it is a libre license.

I could go on and on.

I never said the entire libre software movement was a religion. However, I do believe that some people (like the zealots in that discussion) have turned the libre software movement's positions into their religion. Hence their behaving like zealots toward everyone who disagrees with the positions that they have turned into their personal dogma. The entire free software community does not have to have turned their positions into a religion for some subset of the community to have done so.

As for me calling the FSF nuts, that's based totally on the contents of the philosophy pages at gnu.org. I had never seen them before today (someone linked into them earlier in the discussion). Personally, between the name calling (Amazon Swindle", "game cr...aaps", and "music screaming"), scare quotes in every third sentence, and the newspeak-esque replacing of commonly understood terms because they don't like how those commonly understood terms make people think, I find them almost as crazy as the zealots in that discussion.

With all respect, they look nuts to you because they go against your own personal dogmas. You don't seem to have any reason to have that opinion, just that it's "nuts". It's your dogma actually. Proprietary software is ok and anybody who think it's not is 'nuts'. But you have no reason to think that, just that it's the way it is. You are actually as religious about that as you accuse them to be.

Either you don't know meaning of word "dogma" or you are grossly abusing it in illogical, irrational wrong way in an attempt to degrade and drag down other's position to same level as yours.

Pretty sure it is logical fallacy (False equivalence IIRC). Not bright idea. It's not working...

What I'm trying to say is that calling other people religious zealots or nuts does not constitute an argument, it's just mean. Btw you can stop downvoting anything you don't agree with already, it dorsn't matter at this page and it's just mean anyway.

Meanwhile, among the GNU people "Anything designed to make life easier for Windows developers should be opposed" constitutes a perfectly sound argument. /s