linux

[1936]

What the hell is linux? and why should i use it?

[redvanguard]

That's a bloody good question!

Anyone??

[NovelGentry]

Linux is an operating system, in the effect that it replaces something like Windows, or Apple's OS X. You should use it because it is free (as in speech)/open source software. This means that it's development is open to all and it is created by a community of people who contribute source code and labor freely to the project. It is by far the best example of what a socialized production method can bring to the table for any product.

Linux, and most software that runs on top of it, has fast paced development, DESPITE that people are focusing on it in their free time and few developers relative to the whole are even "compensated" by companies. Sadly, companies are beginning to play a larger role in Linux -- but, in a strange, and almost twisted way they are forced to play by it's rules. The GPL (General Public License) for which Linux and a large majority of open source software is licensed under restricts anyone from closing the source or the source of derivitive works of the project, thus, if a company is going to add a feature to the linux kernel or some other GPL based software, the company must freely distribute that source. Thus, all labor, paid or not, filters back to the community and everyone benefits as a whole.

There are some commercial distros that are very easy to use, but also some "community" distros that are backed by companies. I recommend Ubuntu to most new users, there's good documentation on the wiki, excellent hardware detection from the getgo, and in general it presents the user with a very easy to use and competent desktop.

http://www.ubuntulinux.org/

I personally use Slackware, however, I wouldn't recommend it for any user who's not very knowledgable. For me slackware serves as a base system, to which I then custom build my software packages and create a user interface of my choosing.

The best thing about Linux and the open source world in general is how massive the effort is and how productive it is. There's so much choice available it's difficult to believe anyone can have exactly the same setup.

Here is a link to a few different screenshots of desktops I've had on my system over time:

http://www.dotink.org/~gent/content/Images...VWM20050223.png (http://www.dotink.org/~gent/content/Images/Screenshots/FVWM20050223.png)

http://www.dotink.org/~gent/content/Images...ots/newFVWM.png (http://www.dotink.org/~gent/content/Images/Screenshots/newFVWM.png)

http://www.dotink.org/~gent/content/Images...osxquestion.png (http://www.dotink.org/~gent/content/Images/Screenshots/osxquestion.png)

http://www.dotink.org/~gent/content/Images...ots/waimea5.png (http://www.dotink.org/~gent/content/Images/Screenshots/waimea5.png)

http://www.dotink.org/~gent/content/Images...ndowswishes.png (http://www.dotink.org/~gent/content/Images/Screenshots/windowswishes.png)

There should be screenshots of ubuntu (which runs gnome by default) on the website.

Cheers.

[encephalon]

SuSE is good for beginners as well, though it's sometimes difficult to get it freely.. and is now owned by Novell.

[LSD]

I wish I could use Linux.

I really wish I could use Linux.

But I just couldn't bear rewriting all the programs I've written and use every day, and learning a whole new API is just so deppresing a thought...



But if you're just a casual user and have no pressing reason not to, I highly recommend using Linux.

It's stable, safe, secure, customizable, reliable, small, efficient, fast, and supported by a worldwide community of thousands.

Man... I really wish I could use Linux.... :(

[NovelGentry]

What programs did you write? If you're talking simple C/C++ programs that stuff is easily ported. There's standardization within the library. If you're talking visual basic trash or something specific to Microsoft maybe using a lot of the windows UI API stuff... bleh... why wouldn't you abandon those?

What do you use these programs for anyway?

[LSD]

If you're talking visual basic trash or something specific to Microsoft maybe using a lot of the windows UI API stuff... bleh... why wouldn't you abandon those?

Delphi actually...

and yeah... lots of API calls.

And as for "abandoning" them, I simply don't have the time to rewrite them with Unix/Indy equivilents.


What do you use these programs for anyway?

Oh God, pretty much everything! :lol:

I've spent years obsessibely custamizing my computer.

From driver interfaces to mouse control to directshow.

My media player alone has something like 1400 API calls...

[NovelGentry]

Well you might fiind Linux to be just as customizable due to choice already, and in that sense satisfy your needs. My media player for example is actually just a front end to mpd that I wrote in FVWM script (FVWM being the window manager I use). MPD worries about playing the music with plugins and stuff, while the front end controls.. but you could easily code an advanced front end in a matter of an hour probably.

Not to mention there's a huge host of media players already out there with all different aspects.

You could always just dual boot too and try it out first off and try different applications and see if something fits what you're used to and comfortable with. You might be surprised. Furthermore, it's all open source, so even if you wanted something that didn't really match what was already there, you could actually start from another application and build off of that rather than writing from scratch. In terms of API's, well, choose a toolkit, and stick with it,t hat's all I can recommend. But with significant enough knowledge of C, you should be able to learn the API from existing examples *AS YOU CODE*. Just some thoughts.

[encephalon]

isn't heavy customization of a windows box counter-productive??

beisdes, you can use dual-boot to make the transition gradual.. EDIT:already stated, sorry.

and doesn't microsoft have this strange obsession with not making things backwardly-compatible over very long periods? How do you handle that, exactly? I'm actually rather curious now, strangely.

Not sure if you're aware, but Delphi has been ported to linux. It's known as Kylix, and made by borland.

[VukBZ2005]

Man - I love using Linux. It's very flexible, very fine, very excellent. I view Linux as a example of human collectivization and shows how something could be developed on a anti-authoritarian basis.

[LSD]

Well you might fiind Linux to be just as customizable due to choice already, and in that sense satisfy your needs. My media player for example is actually just a front end to mpd that I wrote in FVWM script (FVWM being the window manager I use). MPD worries about playing the music with plugins and stuff, while the front end controls.. but you could easily code an advanced front end in a matter of an hour probably.

I know its customizable, its just that I can't bear the though of, effectively, repgramming the 7 or 8 programs I use everday.

It isn't exageration that it would probably take weeks.


In terms of API's, well, choose a toolkit, and stick with it,t hat's all I can recommend. But with significant enough knowledge of C, you should be able to learn the API from existing examples *AS YOU CODE*. Just some thoughts.

Yeah... it's not the relearning that's the problem (although I don't relish it) but the reprogramming.

...never really liked C (or C++ or C#), but that's neither here nor there.



Not sure if you're aware, but Delphi has been ported to linux. It's known as Kylix, and made by borland.

I know, but the API calls are still OS-specific.


isn't heavy customization of a windows box counter-productive??

:blink:

Maybe I'm being thick, but what's that in reference to?


and doesn't microsoft have this strange obsession with not making things backwardly-compatible over very long periods? How do you handle that, exactly?

Yeah, tell me about it...

.COM my ass!!! :lol:

The real problem with Microsoft is they have a strange obsession with not making things forward compatable! They keep randomly rewriting the API (and renaming it...).

You deal with it by dealing with it I guess.

Usually they leave in the old stuff (which means they have several calls which DO THE EXACT SAME THING because they just couldn't resist renaming it..again...), so, for a while at least, it's just a minor annoyance.



Man - I love using Linux. It's very flexible, very fine, very excellent. I view Linux as a example of human collectivization and shows how something could be developed on a anti-authoritarian basis.

Yeah, sure, rub it in! :P

[guerillablack]

I loved linux until i ran into some problems updating my kernel. Now i'm gettin weird errors and no modules are loaded. i'm lost.

Slackware isn't that hard though. Don't be scared.

[NovelGentry]

"Slackware isn't that hard, I just tried to update my kernel and nothing worked" -- hehehe, j/k

If you compiled manually from source make sure from the /usr/src/linux dir you type make modules_install then cd to /lib/modules/<kernel version here> and do a depmod -aq as root.

If you installed a package, there&#39;s most likely a separate package for the kernel modules that match your new kernel package.

[Edelweiss]

If you want to try out Linux without even installing it, you can use Knoppix, all you have to do is burn it on CD, and boot the CD on your PC. You have a fully functional linux system than&#33;

Download Knoppix ISO image (ftp://csociety-ftp.ecn.purdue.edu/pub/knoppix/KNOPPIX_V3.6-2004-08-16-DE.iso) (716308 KB)
Newbies see "How to successfully burn or write an ISO-image to CD or DVD" (http://members.home.nl/lsnoek/iso.htm).

http://www.knoppix.org/

[encephalon]

yeah, the one thing I&#39;ve always had problems with is recompiling the kernel. Invariably, I always mess something up. That&#39;s my fault, though, not linux.


QUOTE
isn&#39;t heavy customization of a windows box counter-productive??


blink.gif

Maybe I&#39;m being thick, but what&#39;s that in reference to?

QUOTE
and doesn&#39;t microsoft have this strange obsession with not making things backwardly-compatible over very long periods? How do you handle that, exactly?


Yeah, tell me about it...

Well, there&#39;s one reason..

I once had a dosbox customized. it was "leet", and especially useful for playing legend of the red dragon. Then it all went obsolete on my ass (the BBS game included, for the most part). I haven&#39;t put too much effort in customizing things since, other than the basic X-windows config.


I know, but the API calls are still OS-specific.

is there any reason you didn&#39;t use cross-platform libraries? Was it just for the sake of speed?

[LSD]

s there any reason you didn&#39;t use cross-platform libraries? Was it just for the sake of speed?

:lol:

Look, I&#39;m not saying I used API calls for easy stuff, just for truly OS- Specific stuff.

e.g., Directshow, low-level driver access, exposing USB interfaces, low-level display adapter settings, etc..

Stuff that is intrinsically OS-specific.

That&#39;s the stuff that I would have to reprogram if I made the switch...

[encephalon]

i see..

if you were hardcore, though, you&#39;d do it in pure machine code and bypass the OS altogether. ;) Then the code would just be hardware specific.

although I don&#39;t think you can technically do that now, at least with XP. oh well.

[guerillablack]

Crazy thing is i done compile my kernel 100000 times. Of course i usually run into small problems,but i usually sort them out pretty quickly. This one has kept me off my linux partition for i say over 6 months lol&#33; No matter how many times i revert to another kernel or start from scratch i get same errors. I think its loading wrong kernel or old modules. Something crazy is going on. I will post exact errors soon.

[LSD]

f you were hardcore, though, you&#39;d do it in pure machine code and bypass the OS altogether.

:lol:

yeah... that&#39;s gonna happen... :D

[1936]

Are all programmes that run on windows fully functionaly on it?

Like msn and championship manager?

[NovelGentry]

No. You can run some under wine or cedega, but there&#39;s no guarantee they&#39;ll work. Without wine or cedega, NO programs are compatble... although some companies provide Linux versions.

[1936]

Well who uses it?

[NovelGentry]

I do. A lot of my friends do. A lot of businesses do (both server and desktop). Dreamworks does. The people who program it do. People who I don&#39;t know do.

[Prol]

What I had trouble with when I wanted to have Linux was broadband, I have speedtouch tiscali 2.2Mbps and cant get ubuntu to work with it.

[NovelGentry]

If they came in to set up your system it might use something like a static IP, that&#39;s a fast line, I&#39;d imagine it&#39;s something of a pretty direct connection that isn&#39;t split and thus they wouldn&#39;t bother with putting a dynamic configuration protocol since it&#39;s probably not split and shared out. Try looking at your internet settings in windows, by going to control panel -> networking -> TCP/IP

If you have two cards make sure you select the one for the right card. If there&#39;s addresses typed in to the fields, you&#39;re gonna need those addresses when you set up the networking. If not it uses DHCP and I can&#39;t imagine what the problem would be.

[Prol]

I think its the speedtouch software I cant install it because its a windows only program

[NovelGentry]

Usually the software doesn&#39;t actually connect. It&#39;s usually just a front-end to the more difficult task of setting up the network card, and sometimes it provides you quick links to their e-mail pages or whatever. You should be able to set up any internet connection on Linux that you can on Windows SO LONG as the provider uses standardized protocols, which every broadband provider I&#39;ve seen so far does.

[Prol]

control panel - network connections?

[NovelGentry]

I think it might be called just "Network" -- if you&#39;re using Windows XP you&#39;ll probably have to switch to classic view/style there should be a thing on the left that says something like "Switch to classic look"

[1936]

Should i feel moraly obliged to geting it installed?

[LSD]

Should i feel moraly obliged to geting it installed?

No, of course not. If Linux meets your needs and it seems to be the kind of OS you want to use, then use it. If it doesn&#39;t then don&#39;t.

If BeOS is more to your liking, for instance, then use it&#33; Or Fedora Core or YOPY/Linupy or Zaurus or BSD or Solaris or QNX...

..or, hell, even windows&#33; (although I would never pay for Windows)

It&#39;s really just a personal preference.

[NovelGentry]

It&#39;s really just a personal preference.

Is it though? I mean, it&#39;s kinda a different scenario than 8,000 capitalist retailers and you have to choose one... they&#39;re all capitalist.

But this is worker created, free for the people, community pushed software -- this is what we promote in terms of freeing the worker. I feel morally obliged to use open source software, there was indeed a time when I thought it should be about preference. But when the option is available, it&#39;s not about preference.

Mind you, I do understand not all people CAN use it. Some people really just can&#39;t wrap their head around it, and in that case, don&#39;t use it. If it doesn&#39;t solve your need because it doesn&#39;t work with your system and you can&#39;t figure it out -- then it&#39;s no longer really preference.

But if it comes down to you choosing between free software and commercial software with no loss in functionality... feel morally obliged. And I think everyone should be morally obliged to at least give it a shot.

[LSD]

But this is worker created, free for the people, community pushed software -- this is what we promote in terms of freeing the worker.

Sub-microcosmic communism, eh?

While I appreciate the sentiment, ultimately isn&#39;t it just that? I mean whereas purchasing commercial software by its nature is both a personal and an economic act, the use of free software, in and of itself, is not.

That is, spending money on commercial software supports the company in question and hence prepetuates both the current economic model and the profits of the company. You are, in effect, rewarding the executives at that company for their exploitation of their workers and at the same time ensuring that other executives will exploit other workers.

But... the use of free/open software does not have a parallel effect on the free software model. Because of the nature of open software, your use of the product in no way bennefits the workers who created it, unless you plan on contributing or assisting in the further development of that software which, frankly, is an entirely seperate issue.

Basically, there are two ways one can acquire open sofware such as Linux. Either one can purchase it from a company such as Red Hat, in which case, the action is morally wrong for the reasons outlined above, or one can get it for free in which case the action is morally neutral for the reasons listed above.

On the question of the downloading of commercial software without paying, we again find ourselves in a neutral moral position as we are no longer rewarding the exploitation, nor buying into the economic structure. We are, of course, not truly helping the workers, but, unfortunately, none of the available options allow us to do this.

Accordingly, so long as the choices are:
1.) Download free software without paying
2.) Download commercial software without paying

We are left with two morally neutral choices, and so I maintain that the decision is, ultimately, one of preference.


there was indeed a time when I thought it should be about preference. But when the option is available, it&#39;s not about preference.

Again, I would maintain that there is no ethical difference between the two options. While the use of free software is, gesturally preferable, one can also interpret the "illegal" use of commerical software to be an equally valid gesture as to the imorality of "intellectual property" laws and an exploitative labour system.

The sole effective difference between the two is the point that the use of commercial software, even not bought software, perpetuates the dominance or at least the persistance of the paltform / system in question. One relevent example is how the mass distribution of Windows 3.1 ultimately helped Microsoft.

While this argument has a certain legitimacy, the problem with it is that it is ultimately both naive and short-sighted

Firstly, as software develops, platformic differences are becomming less and less relevent. Already through the use of emulators, cross-platform libraries, cross-coding, and good old fashoiined source distribution, a great deal of software is equally useable on several OSes.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the simple fact is that commerical software will be both relevent and dominant for the forseeable future. Should the time come that open software is a legitimate threat to the existance of a commerical software industry, then this issue become relevent. But, at the rate things are progressing, by the time that happens, the line between free and commerical software will be sufficiently blended that the issue of platform will no longer be subsistant.


But if it comes down to you choosing between free software and commercial software with no loss in functionality... feel morally obliged.

Well, doesn&#39;t preference ultimately come down, in a way, to "loss in functionality"?

Isn&#39;t the reason that you choose one piece of software over the other that the former offers some "function" which the latter does not? Now, this is all very subjective of course, but that&#39;s the nature of preference.

No two OSes are identical and hence no single OSes can genuinely said to not be lacking a feature than another posesses.

In the end, it&#39;s all ultimately about personal need, and so, truly, it should be a personal decision.

[NovelGentry]

While I disagree with much of what you said and could sit here and argue... I&#39;m not going to. I talk enough about computers not to have it come round here and keep bugging me.

But really LOOK at what happens in the open source community, even within companies like RedHat and Novell, and I think you&#39;ll find things are slightly different than you expect.

As far as one simple concept dealing less with computers:


But... the use of free/open software does not have a parallel effect on the free software model. Because of the nature of open software, your use of the product in no way bennefits the workers who created it

This assumes that you have to contribute a benefit to warrant communism -- which is of course false. If one has to contribute a benefit, indeed one is compensating the labor of others with their own labor. Then it becomes noting more than a trade market.

They do this work cause they want to do it. Their compensation and the benefit they receive is very much the same that will exist in communism: a) enjoyment in what you do b) revere and respect within your communit c) knowing you&#39;ve contributed to something that really matters.

While it is true our labor does not benefit them, the only thing that can be assumed from this is that WE are not working in the same mode of production. Although some of us, such as myself, who do write open source software are -- thus your followup point


unless you plan on contributing or assisting in the further development of that software which, frankly, is an entirely seperate issue.

is only half true. It is not an entirely separate issue, but it is not the issue at hand. Is the mode of production communist? Indeed it is. Does that entail communist society -- no. However, to assume they don&#39;t achieve with that production the same rewards of communist production is not true -- as what you get from society under communism would/should never be looked at as the reward or compensation for what you contribute.

[LSD]

This assumes that you have to contribute a benefit to warrant communism -- which is of course false. If one has to contribute a benefit, indeed one is compensating the labor of others with their own labor. Then it becomes noting more than a trade market.

My point was that the use of free software has zero positive bennefit towards the movement in and of itself and that despite communalistic tendencies, there is no moral obligation to participate in what is, ultimately, nothing but a microcosm of a potential communistic environment.

Communism within capitalism will never be reflective of a true enviroment, and while open software does share many of the traits of a theoretical communist society, it is not one. There will be a trade market within the open source community, there will be selling and buying and capitalism.

Many people develop free software and "make money" off of it. Red Hat is far from an isolated case, and many more people are out there developing open source for the purpose of making money&#33; It may not be in a traditional sense, certainly not the classic software model, but it still is capitalism&#33;


is only half true. It is not an entirely separate issue, but it is not the issue at hand. Is the mode of production communist? Indeed it is. Does that entail communist society -- no.

Its a seperate issue in terms of whether or not there is a moral imperative to use free software as oppsed to using commercial.


However, to assume they don&#39;t achieve with that production the same rewards of communist production is not true -- as what you get from society under communism would/should never be looked at as the reward or compensation for what you contribute.

But that isn&#39;t the issue either.

The question isn&#39;t whether the rewards are similar to communism, because clearly they are, but whether this fact means that one has a moral imperative to use this type of software.

Again, I would argue that similarity to communism does not, ultimately, mean anything in terms of ethical responsiblities.

If one using this software does not help develop communistic sentiment, and does not help further communistic thought, and does not send a message that cannot be sent by choosing the alternative... then on what basis do you claim a moral imperitive?

I will concede that, from a microcosmic perspective, the free software movement is a fascinating example of a communalistic socieity within a capitalistic world, but I do not accept that this means I "must" therefore use the products of this enviroment. Not if there is not a productive reason.

You say that communism is not about "rewards" and you&#39;re right. Communism is not about reward, but revolution is&#33;

The "reward" of revolution is ....communism, and once that has been achieved we can talk about a reward-less society. But as long as we are attempting to foster the revolution, the only ethical responsiblity we have is to effective acts. Gestures mean nothing.

Look, I support free software, but in response to Elmo&#39;s question. no, there is not a moral imperitive to use it.

[encephalon]

Look, I support free software, but in response to Elmo&#39;s question. no, there is not a moral imperitive to use it.

I disagree, in the same sense that I think it is a moral imperative to avoid shopping at walmart if a person is at all able to do so, and support more worker-oriented and progressive establishments whenever possible. In its most basic form, it is agitation.

You have a choice between two products (although there are more, it doesn&#39;t matter): one that fully endorses capitalism, and one that, even if it exists under capitalism--as we all do--leans toward a model more in-line with communist, socialist, anarchist and overall leftist principles.

In the same vein, I think it is indeed morally imperative for all who are able to use linux just as it is imperative that those who are able not buy products made by children in sweatshops. The only difference is that the latter relies on financial concerns while the former relies on knowledge/eagerness-to-learn.. which no longer takes much effort for general computer use under linux.

[Prol]

I agree with encephalon, if its possible to NOT use capitalist companies then we shouldnt.

I still use windows because im too inept to use Linux at the moment, I hope to get it though, plus my computer is about 5 years old, I should get a new one with Linux on it.

I know its not about Linux but the coffee and tea I drink is "cafedirect" and "teadirect" it&#39;s fair trade coffee and tea direct from the growers.

[LSD]

I disagree, in the same sense that I think it is a moral imperative to avoid shopping at walmart if a person is at all able to do so

Yes, because by shopping you are supporting wal-mart. The paralel would be purchasing commercial software, which I am not endorsing.


In the same vein, I think it is indeed morally imperative for all who are able to use linux just as it is imperative that those who are able not buy products made by children in sweatshops.

Again, you&#39;re talking about support which is not an issue here. No one is advocating that you buy commercial software&#33;&#33;&#33;

I&#39;m just saying that using commercial software and using free software are both morally neutral actions in and of themselves.


You have a choice between two products (although there are more, it doesn&#39;t matter): one that fully endorses capitalism, and one that, even if it exists under capitalism--as we all do--leans toward a model more in-line with communist, socialist, anarchist and overall leftist principles.

But what do you mean by "fully endorses capitalism"?

Certainly commercial software, by definition, was produced within a capitalist market, but then so was free software. So long as you yourself do not participate in that market, and do not purchase commercial software, you are in no way "endorsing" or "supporting" capitalism.

And if you meant gesturally, i again reiterate that the same message is sent by the "illegal" use of commerical software as is sent through the use of free software.

[encephalon]

But what do you mean by "fully endorses capitalism"?

I contend that microsoft is to the computer industry what walmart is to retail.


And if you meant gesturally, i again reiterate that the same message is sent by the "illegal" use of commerical software as is sent through the use of free software.

The use of windows, legally or not, still supports the windows architecture, as others know that they should still write code for windows rather than linux to appeal to the great majority. This keeps windows on top, allowing microsoft to keep profits soaring whether you use it legally or not--most of their money comes from business deals, not pure sales. Though you may not be endorsing the sale of windows, you still endorse its use over that of a viable alternative more in line with leftist principles.

[NovelGentry]

I stopped arguing this awhile ago, cause I really am sick of talking about computers, but I&#39;m glad to see encephalon is carrying on the arguments.

[LSD]

The use of windows, legally or not, still supports the windows architecture, as others know that they should still write code for windows rather than linux to appeal to the great majority. This keeps windows on top, allowing microsoft to keep profits soaring whether you use it legally or not--most of their money comes from business deals, not pure sales. Though you may not be endorsing the sale of windows, you still endorse its use over that of a viable alternative more in line with leftist principles.

Yeah, I&#39;ve thought about that one:

Originally posted by myself
The sole effective difference between the two is the point that the use of commercial software, even not bought software, perpetuates the dominance or at least the persistance of the paltform / system in question. One relevent example is how the mass distribution of Windows 3.1 ultimately helped Microsoft.

While this argument has a certain legitimacy, the problem with it is that it is ultimately both naive and short-sighted

Firstly, as software develops, platformic differences are becomming less and less relevent. Already through the use of emulators, cross-platform libraries, cross-coding, and good old fashioned source distribution, a great deal of software is equally useable on several OSes.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the simple fact is that commerical software will be both relevent and dominant for the forseeable future. Should the time come that open software is a legitimate threat to the existance of a commerical software industry, then this issue will become relevent. But, at the rate things are progressing, by the time that happens, the line between free and commerical software will be sufficiently blended that the issue of platform will no longer be subsistant.

I would like to add to that that the use of a common platform, even if it is a commercial one can actually help the development of free software. Certainly there is no doubt that Windows for all its obvious flaws was useful in that in managed to create a truly common base to work with.

In the end, of course, the commercial software industry cannot survive, accordingly it is as much in the interests of the free software movement to see this inevitable collapse as it is to see usership rates increase. Therefore, although, in the short run, the use of commercial software may "artificially" inflate the numbers of commerical users and hence support a sort of illusion of a flourishing industry, in the end, using their software destroys them just as much as not using it. Because they&#39;re a capitalstic industry, not making money is always not making money. They are hurt just as much from "illegal" distribution as they are from F-S competition. Sure, the platformic issue comes up, but its not nearly as critical as it once was.

And finally there is the issue of reality. Although, again, the free software movment exhibits communisitc overtones, so long as it exists within a capitalist economy, it exists within a capitalist economy. Not only does this mean that you have to face the problem of capitalism within the movement, but, more importantly, outside as well. There will always be commercial software being produced that is worth using, and, more relevently, that should be used. You are artifically cutting off the progress of an industry if you abandon the products of capitalism within capitalism&#33;

In a communist society, none of this would be an issue. But so long as we are in one, and so long as we are not talking about materially supporting the industry, there&#39;s nothing wrong with using what&#39;s out there.

[encephalon]

Should the time come that open software is a legitimate threat to the existance of a commerical software industry, then this issue will become relevent.

That&#39;s the whole damned problem, and why it is indeed entirely relevent: open sofware will not be a legitimate threat to commercial software unless as many people are devoted to using open software as they are to commercial sofware (or rather, the lack of devotion to open standards defaults to commercial software).

Without support, especially by those who actively want to pursue much of the theoretical framework and production process of open standards on a holistic level, it will be eventually defeated by more hierarchical forms of development.

The technology and conditions of one epoch is created within the previous age. That&#39;s dependent, however, on the development&#39;s survival.

Without imperative support, it will not become any more relevant than it is now.


And finally there is the issue of reality. Although, again, the free software movment exhibits communisitc overtones, so long as it exists within a capitalist economy, it exists within a capitalist economy. Not only does this mean that you have to face the problem of capitalism within the movement, but, more importantly, outside as well. There will always be commercial software being produced that is worth using, and, more relevently, that should be used. You are artifically cutting off the progress of an industry if you abandon the products of capitalism within capitalism&#33;

There is absolutely nothing in a profit-driven process that cannot be done in a cooperative process. If you argue against this, I&#39;m not sure how you could ever truthfully want an anarcho-communist society--because by this argument all progress will effectively end with capitalism. Unless you&#39;re a primitivist, of course, which changes everything; but if you were, you wouldn&#39;t be concerned with progress of the industry in the first place.

It is not a matter of choosing between capitalism and non-capitalism. Of course it&#39;s capitalistic, it can&#39;t not be under current circumstances. It&#39;s a matter of choosing how the development process evolves from the current system into the future: choose windows and have a highly secretive, "intellectual" property-based system feuled by profit alone for an indeterminate future, or have a completely open, functionally-driven model more easily molded to that which we all (presumably) want to be established in every industry and form possible.


In the end, of course, the commercial software industry cannot survive, accordingly it is as much in the interests of the free software movement to see this inevitable collapse as it is to see usership rates increase. Therefore, although, in the short run, the use of commercial software may "artificially" inflate the numbers of commerical users and hence support a sort of illusion of a flourishing industry, in the end, using their software destroys them just as much as not using it. Because they&#39;re a capitalstic industry, not making money is always not making money. They are hurt just as much from "illegal" distribution as they are from F-S competition. Sure, the platformic issue comes up, but its not nearly as critical as it once was.

I disagree. For one, without viable alternatives to the many who aren&#39;t exposed to open development as it stands, plenty of people will still buy the products to make it a profitable and lasting model. If I steal from walmart, walmart isn&#39;t going to shut down. It&#39;s only when everyone steals from walmart that it will shut down, and not enough people are going to steal from walmart to have that effect. The same applies to microsoft and associates. The only method to destroy walmart is to create a viable alternative (based on leftist ideals, of course) in which a great majority are able to easily find the alternative and use the alternative, neither of which will happen if no dedication exists by the very people that promote similar ideas.

As it stands, using illegal software simply raises the price of the product for those that use it, and microsoft is perfectly willing to accept the few losses that occur (they still make a substantial profit) from using windows illegally if it effectively destroys any chance of competition--especially linux--from gaining preference by a large majority, even if they don&#39;t raise prices for those that buy it. And that is exactly what happens when people don&#39;t use linux out of apathy and fear.

Using Windows illegally only effectively hurts microsoft and helps the open-source model if absolutely every uses windows illegally, and that&#39;s just not going to happen. The only way open development can become a standard to build upon in a future socialist/communist/anarchist society is by proliferation. And if those very people that support similar standards that linux is built upon don&#39;t use it, that will never happen.

[LSD]

...hmmm..

In considering the issue, I think you&#39;re right.