On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 13:49 -0600, Frank Cox wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 15:40:27 -0400
> Matthew Saltzman <mjs@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > I'm sorry, I assumed you were being deliberately provocative. I
> > couldn't think of any other rationale for your remarks.
>
> You have either not read, or have failed to understand my previous remarks.
I read this:
If you depend on proprietary software, then Linux is not for you. Microsoft
and/or Apple products are a much better fit for your needs.
and this:
There are all kinds of licenses. If your requirements include "proprietary,
closed-source and immutable software", then Linux is not for you.
I'm sorry if this is the first time you have heard this.
the entirety of two back-to-back messages. The message seemed clear
enough.
> > Were you
> > seriously suggesting that because I happen to have hardware that needs
> > drivers that are only available in proprietary form, or that I happen to
> > need Maple or Matlab or other commercial software with no OSS
> > equivalent, or that my employer uses Exchange, that I have no business
> > using Linux?
>
> I suggest that when you are doing things like interfacing with Microsoft
> Exchange and other things like that, your life will be much easier if you stick
> with a Microsoft software stack. If you wish to move to a Free Software stack,
> your life will be much simpler if you move to Free Software for those things
> rather than trying to ram the "old way of doing things" into a completely new
> system.
>
> Of course, it's up to you if you want to do things the hard way or the easy
> way; you are welcome to use proprietary software on any platform you wish.
>
> It becomes difficult to sympathize with people who are not prepared to help
> themselves, though. "I want to to X." In order to do X, you require Y and Z.
> "But I don't want to get Y. Just make it work with Z and make it look exactly
> the same as it did before. I don't want to have to learn anything new, ever".
>
> If that's the situation, then you don't want Free Software. You want another
> box containing exactly what you have on your desk right now. "But it doesn't
> work very well."
I support efforts to get hardware manufacturers to open their drivers
and software vendors to open their standards. I support the efforts of
the Samba team and the Evolution Exchange Connector team and the NTFS
team to make open-source tools that interoperate with those proprietary
systems. I've done--and continue to do--my share of living with bugs
and reporting bugs in those tools (and lobbying vendors) so I can work
in an open-source environment. I appreciate the difficulties that those
developers face.
I develop open-source tools (including tools that interoperate with
proprietary software) as part of my work and I advocate for open-source
tools to my colleagues. I've contributed patches and diagnostics to a
few Red Hat packages. But I think the world is a big place with room
for lots of business models. Open source is a superior model in many
ways, but not superior (even if no worse than proprietary) in others.
Proprietary software isn't going to disappear tomorrow. While we are
working on vendors to make their products more open-source friendly, I
still need to use what's available to get my work done.
And I resent being told that because of circumstances I can't control,
I'm somehow not worthy of being a member of the Linux community. Your
quarrel is with the vendors. Picking fights with your users is
counterproductive.
> See the contradiction?
--
Matthew Saltzman
Clemson University Math Sciences
mjs AT clemson DOT edu
http://www.math.clemson.edu/~mjs
