digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at news.bbc.co.uk

It's not the Gates, it's the bars

news.bbc.co.uk — To pay so much attention to Bill Gates' retirement is missing the point. What really matters is not Gates, nor Microsoft, but the unethical system of restrictions that Microsoft, like many other software companies, imposes on its customers.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • ins3, on 07/03/2008, -23/+49Go open source!
    • Borbus, on 07/03/2008, -4/+14Or, rather, free software!
    • Dylson, on 07/04/2008, -12/+4No. Well...yes. No to linux, yes to open source software. If that makes any sense.
    • Smeed, on 07/04/2008, -7/+2Or not.
    • misterdrumz, on 07/04/2008, -6/+12This makes me laugh, let me just play devil's advocate here: Microsoft get a whole lot of jip for being closed off and restrictive, yet has software that will run on any platform with any kind of hardware you want. Heck it will even allow you to install their software on competing operating systems and actively develop software such as Office for a direct competitor. and Bill Gates is transformed into this oppresive boogeyman.

      On the other hand you have Apple who force you to buy their (lets face it) over priced bespoke hardware, not allowing you to build your own (despite recent attempts), makes a big deal about their software being on their platform only (not Safari or iTunes, I mean other ones like photo/video editing) and yet the world and their dog praises Steve Jobs for being the Anti-Bill.

      I hate format wars and brand fanboyism as much as the next guy but don't like it when a company that has managed to get the leading market share gets villified when everyone else is either doing exactly the same, worse and probably wishes they had the same results!
      • ADINSX, on 07/04/2008, -1/+5"yet has software that will run on any platform"
        Really? I can get windows for architectures other than x86?

        "with any kind of hardware you want"
        That isn't Microsoft's doing; they don't write the drivers, the hardware manufacturers do.

        Also, Apple is anything but free software. You are arguing one devil against the other here. The article is about GNU/Linux, not proprietary operating systems.

        I know you're playing devils advocate, but I can't help but respond.
      • Delphar7, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1Perhaps he was playing Devil's Advocate, but at least he knew what he was talking about and didn't just make stuff up.

        Architectures: x86, x64 (Dug), Itanium, Dec Alpha, MIPS, PowerPC. At the end of the day, no one wants Windows on any other architecture than X86/64. Sun isn't interested; apple was annoyed it could run on their power-pc's in the day... You can't blame MS on this one.

        Hardware Drivers: Actually, except video drivers it is most likely that the rest of the drivers on your box were written by microsoft. Additionally, any critical driver that is 'certified' has it's source stored in a 'neutral vault' so that MS can get the source if that company goes out of business. Protecting the Intellectual Property of the hardware vendor; while insuring the future compatibility for users.

        There's a reason Linux isn't actually fully GPL compliant you know.

        What bothers me the most about the torrent (pun coming up) of posts like this is that in reality the great majority of them are driven by individual desire to 'get stuff for free', and no higher purpose. Most of you don't even know how to program in the languages most of this stuff is written in. You don't care about open source - you care about not paying for stuff. But let's step back and assume you do care about the righteous goals of open source. How far do you think your open source would go if there was no MS to passionately despise? I certainly remember those days. We had perl, elm, tin, bash, gcc, and emacs. X10 and just been upgraded to X11 - and frankly it wasn't all that good. What is open source without an 'enemy'? It's hobby programming to show off - no internationalization - no security (ugh - the tftp worm anyone?) - in other words, no one to do the 50% of the work that isn't fun, but actually makes the software usable to non-programmers. Should all the games be open source too? Cause lots of people will be motivated to make great games for free. Yay - 10 more years of nethack, xtrek, and bzone!

        Ignorance and prejudice
        And fear walk hand in hand...
  • dogStar, on 07/03/2008, -14/+69All praise St. Stallman. What an awesome article! One thing to note, however, is that the BBC are carrying this story. Normally very pro-Microsoft (to the point where they are facing an European Commission investigation into them providing with illegal state-aid around iPlayer), they probably thought it worthwhile being more 'balanced' in their reporting.
    • supermansuper, on 07/04/2008, -7/+5The article exhorts openness and bemoans restrictive licenses, yet they felt the need to slap on the "You can copy and redistribute this article under the Creative Commons Noderivs license. " line at the end of the article. Talk about irony!
      • balaknair, on 07/04/2008, -1/+6Irony? Why?

        You might want to take a look at the Creative Commons site
        http://creativecommons.org/about/

        Some key points-

        "Creative Commons defines the spectrum of possibilities between full copyright — all rights reserved — and the public domain — no rights reserved. Our licenses help you keep your copyright while inviting certain uses of your work — a “some rights reserved” copyright."

        The CC Noderivs License:
        Licensees may copy, distribute, display and perform only verbatim copies of the work, not derivative works based on it.
        You are free:
        * to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work
        Under the following conditions:
        * No Derivative Works. You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work.
        * For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work. The best way to do this is with a link to this web page.
        * Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder.
        * Nothing in this license impairs or restricts the author's moral rights.

        In other words you can quote from the article, reproduce the article in a magazine or website, make pamphlets and distribute it or sell copies... as long as you change nothing in the article(like substituting the Author's name with your own or publishing it under a different license(which gives you or someone else copyright or takes away the author's rights).
        I'm afraid I don't see the irony. You're free under this license to use this article, but you're not allowed to steal it or change it. For a look at the other end of the spectrum, read up on 'Copiepresse vs Google' and 'Copiepresse vs EU'(you can find articles on this by Googling it or read about it on Groklaw.
      • GawtMilk, on 07/04/2008, -1/+1* No Derivative Works. You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work.

        Read-only open source?
      • supermansuper, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1@balaknair, I am not talking about the terms of the license. I am talking about the need to impose this license for this article. For some reason Stallman and BBC thought that they need to protect this piece of work. The irony is in the fact that the piece of work was actually complaining about another entity (Microsoft) protecting their work and investment by imposing a license.
      • will27, on 07/04/2008, -0/+5The reason Stallman feels the need to protect this work with Creative Commons is the same as the reason the GPL exists to protect free software. If it was public domain there would be no restrictions on another entity taking it and creating derivative works with a more restrictive license. Creative commons ensures that the article can be republished, and remains bound by the same license to be open to others to use, under the condition that they also publish it in an open way. The license is the opposite of restriction, it only restricts someone who would restrict someone else.

        This concept is what the entire FLOSS community is based around, for more information visit http://www.fsf.org/

        Also I'm not completely sure but I'd assume that the no derivative works tag is just so that you don't misquote RMS, otherwise you could rewrite any statement into the article, including ones which he would disagree with. Therefore in this case this is probably the most appropriate license
      • init100, on 07/04/2008, -0/+2@will27

        "Also I'm not completely sure but I'd assume that the no derivative works tag is just so that you don't misquote RMS, otherwise you could rewrite any statement into the article, including ones which he would disagree with."

        This is very likely the exact reason why he chose the "no derivative works" version of Creative Commons. He is protecting his name and his reputation, and there is nothing wrong with that.
      • carloszun, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1The problem with the Noderivs is I can't translate it to spanish now :(
      • mattlee, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1Sure you can. You just need to ask him for permission.
      • daradib, on 08/04/2008, -0/+1Stallman has explained before that there are functional works (i.e. software, encyclopedias, textbooks), which should be free as in free software (copy, distribute, modify, derivative, etc.). Other works (including opinions), may not have the same freedoms, but ideally should have the right to copy and distribute without modifications.

        The freedom of functional works is important, but other works (like opinions) are exactly what they are---opinions and the freedom of these works only extents to copying and distributing.

        Though translations would be nice, they may change the opinion of the article.
  • CrispyBeef, on 07/03/2008, -10/+36There is no excuse for the government here in the UK to not switch to Linux for a lot of things. Some cities in Germany and other countries have done so to great effect. It would save money, secure systems more effectively and allow government departments to modify software to make it suit their needs more closely. So much better.

    I've been using Linux for the last few years, that along with my PS2 - and hopefully PS3 soon - I have no need to use Windows at all. It's also worth noting for those that don't know, Mac OS X is based on open source software. You can have a very similar experience also without the hefty price tag.
    • mattlee, on 07/03/2008, -1/+35OS X might have some free software distributed with it, but Mac OS X is proprietary, make no mistake.
    • Kingoftherings, on 07/03/2008, -3/+30OS X is still $130, plus the Apple Hardware.

      Its a proprietary OS, based on Open Source Software, its almost as bad as Microsoft.
      • Borbus, on 07/03/2008, -3/+25It's as bad as Microsoft. Don't forget Apple made DRM a lot more popular with their itunes service and they have a complete lack of support for free and open formats such as FLAC and Vorbis on there.
      • jmreid, on 07/04/2008, -7/+4That might be the fault of the Music/Movie industry. Not Apple or Microsoft for that matter.
      • GrantTLC, on 07/04/2008, -4/+8In some ways it's worse than Microsoft: at least Vista doesn't try and make you believe you're a better person for buying it. :p
    • Borbus, on 07/03/2008, -0/+21I agree the government should definitely be using only FREE software and open formats. Using GNU/Linux for schools would be a good start. I stopped paying my license fee when the BBC started distributing DRM, I can't stop paying my taxes can I?!
      • ringokamens, on 07/03/2008, -1/+4It takes one person to be the first.
      • bahmak2004, on 07/03/2008, -3/+1I wish to follow if only I could.
      • KibibyteBrain, on 07/04/2008, -3/+1Well, I'd agree for their general purpose desktops, but non-Free OSes are used for lots of things that FOSS is not a drop in replacement for or is a poor alternative too. Like PLMs or embedded Unix even(VxWorks can be worth it sometimes in productivity of a dev team). And of course, .net 3.0 is very nice to code for, no denying that. I don't think FOSS was ever about handcuffing people to it under the guise of having to "eat your veggies", more of "you just use this set X of features, and that set X is totally covered by good FOSS products, so why not?".
    • tenjin1, on 07/04/2008, -3/+12Yep Mac is crippled with anti-features just like Winblows..it is not open-source..although at it's operating system core it is UNIX, but not LINUX.
    • lerker, on 07/04/2008, -1/+7You realise your PS2 runs proprietary software, right?
      • KibibyteBrain, on 07/04/2008, -0/+8Unless your PC has FOSS firmwares and BIOS, it probably does too, even if its a Linux or *BSD box.
    • TKardinal, on 07/04/2008, -6/+3Except you can't run the best office suite in the world on Linux: Office 2007. If you want to limit yourself, feel free.
      • jnordb, on 07/04/2008, -3/+7Best office suite in the world is a bit subjective; what suits your needs and quantifies a package as best may be the thing that others dislike about it. Personally, the last MS Office I bought was 2000, and I have been using Open Office for years now. I know it may not have all the features of MS Office yet, but I can update to any new version as soon as it is released without spending a dime. Open Office is under active development, and I imagine eventually, maybe very soon, it will end up having more functionality than MS Office...But if you want to waste hundreds of dollars every two years or so on a new Office license, feel free.
      • paulsmith288, on 07/04/2008, -3/+3its the best , yeah!
        If your chained to your desk and know everything about office 2007 - I feel for your sad life. If however you only do a little bit of word processing - use the spreadsheet a little - like most of us - Then your a *****. Word 2.0 from windows 3.11 will probably do the job.
      • secrity, on 07/04/2008, -0/+3Office 2007 runs just fine under Kubuntu -- using Crossover
      • Kingoftherings, on 07/04/2008, -0/+3I use Office 2007, I don't think its that good. And especially for what I do, and what most people do Open Office is more than enough.
    • Stonekeeper, on 07/04/2008, -0/+9Living in the UK, the biggest irk i have with the government WRT computers is the fact that a lot of it's websites which education establishments are REQUIRED BY LAW to use are IE only. This is entirely unjust and makes me mad (which i have every right to be being a tax payer).
      • covertbadger, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1Any examples? The government websites I've used (which is not all of them, obviously) have worked fine in Firefox.
      • Stonekeeper, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1Yes, I can get you those. The one off the top of my head I'm thinking about is the EMA grants site. Are you also forced to use GOLA testing? That's IE only too.
  • tatis44, on 07/03/2008, -12/+21Free as in freedom!

    http://www.binaryfreedom.info
    http://www.dailyradical.org
    • Amiga501, on 07/04/2008, -8/+1LOL, these ***** are like PETA for computers. Take this sensationalist ***** elsewhere, and get a job while you're at it.
  • guyjohnston, on 07/03/2008, -10/+35Excellent article. A great change from the normal BBC articles about software and Microsoft, such as the ones when Windows Vista came out, which were basically just advertisements for it.
    • Beautyon, on 07/03/2008, -5/+7This is not a 'BBC' article, it is by Richard Stallman. All BBC 'journalists' are total scum.
      But you know this!
      • avihappy, on 07/04/2008, -0/+4How are they scum? They are better than what FNC or CNN have.
      • aptanalogy, on 07/04/2008, -0/+3Better than FNC≈cleaner than sewage.
      • balaknair, on 07/04/2008, -0/+2"Better than FNC≈cleaner than sewage."

        LOL :-D
    • chaoswings, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1This article is not excellent at all. You are just saying that to appeal to the anti-MS crowd. Everyone on digg is acting like someone finally uncovered some big cover-up or secret but it's all public knowledge. The article is also spreading FUD.

      "There's also the Digital Restrictions Management: software features designed to "stop" you from accessing your files freely. Increased restriction of users seems to be the main advance of Vista. "

      This is totally wrong.

      Case and point:
      http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=299
  • FZero, on 07/03/2008, -26/+33No digg, sorry. I support open source, but I think Stallman is not only past its prime but actually harmful to the whole free/open software movement. All extremists are harmful.
    • schestowitz, on 07/03/2008, -11/+17Defending freedom is now 'extremism'?
      • freqk, on 07/03/2008, -1/+13It can be. Depends how you do it.
      • kretik, on 07/04/2008, -5/+20Yes schez my boy, Stallman is on record saying that anyone who doesn't give away his code under the license he approves of is "immoral" and should "find another job". That's extremism. He is on record saying that companies that write "non free" software should release their code or disappear. That's extremism.

        ESR on the other hand, realizes that will happen around the time pigs fly, so his approach is much more pragmatic.

        Emotional phrases like "defending freedom" have no place in discussions about people who advocate the elimination of people who don't think like them.

        So yeah, his *technical* contributions notwithstanding, he is an extremist.
      • Fartag, on 07/04/2008, -9/+5"Emotional phrases like "defending freedom" have no place in discussions about people who advocate the elimination of people who don't think like them."

        Holy FSM!!! When did Stallman advocate the _elimination of people_ that don't think like him? He's really only "extremist" from the point of view of those defending an "extreme"-ly bad information economic model, one that relies on information restriction for its success.

        Keep in mind this is the same broken system that would _love_ to send people to jail for watching copyrighted Youtube videos, and power drill DRM chips into your grandma's brain while skimping on the Ibuprofen, and other douchebaggery. Unfortunately, many people rely on this backwards system, so attempts at Stallman demonization are expected and widespread.

        Stallman wants to see increased support for and use of free software. Free software being software with no catches for the user, except of the "freedom preserving" kind (GPL). So, naturally this implies pro-open source, anti-DRM, anti-DMCA, unencumbered use of ideas, anti-closed source, and you're right he's probably against corporations or people working to strengthen closed source and information restrictions when they could instead be doing much better work on this front.

        Genocide is not part of any of his advocations to my knowledge.
      • Murdats, on 07/04/2008, -2/+4@fartag
        I am sorry to be the one to tell you, but you also are an extremist, also thats some nice strawmans you have.
      • Fartag, on 07/04/2008, -2/+3@Murdats

        An extremist? Well I'm pro-rationalist, pro-science, and pro-tech-advance if that's what you mean? Anyway, don't be shy leaving the specifics out of that accusation! ;D
      • paulsmith288, on 07/04/2008, -3/+2"Yes schez my boy, Stallman is on record saying that anyone who doesn't give away his code under the license he approves of is "immoral" and should "find another job". That's extremism."

        HIS code - he is no different to the RIAA in dictating how he wants he stuff distributed. Except obviously different end of the scale.
      • JohnLawson, on 07/04/2008, -1/+3What a cute little twist on the word, "freedom". Countries are invaded with that word.. what ever it may mean.
      • balaknair, on 07/04/2008, -1/+3@Paulsmith288
        RIAA? What Stallman insists on is you don't take his code, modify it, bundle it in your closed source app, and sell it to others. The whole thing about community is that you not only receive from the community, you also contribute. If you use Open Source code, you benefit from the work of others before you. To ensure that others down the line don't share those benefits is just plain ***** behavior. The GPL is there to make sure that his code remains free for others to use.
        What the RIAA does is hound the Average Joe out there because he made a back up copy of his CD and threaten to take him to court(or pay the RIAA more money). He doesn't even have to sell it or give it away to anybody else or lend it to others. He made an 'unauthorized copy', so he's a pirate and should go to jail(or of course, pay the RIAA). In more civilized settings/times, that was called "Money with Menaces" or blackmail.

        Personally, I don't agree with a lot of what Stallman says, but I'm also willing to admit that without uncompromising people like Stallman, the OSS movement might never have gotten as far as it has today. He has shown himself to be a person of integrity, and definitely does not deserve to be called an extremist just because his views are different from yours.
      • Lebrun, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1In the US it is.
    • chrizzle, on 07/03/2008, -5/+18i wouldn't consider stallman an extremist. he doesn't advocate sabotage or violence or anything illegal in the support of his cause.

      he's more like an evangelical: a proselytizer. he's out there pushing the word on everyone.

      he's over the top, he's an iconoclast, he's pushy, but he's brilliant and mostly harmless.
      • Murdats, on 07/04/2008, -1/+3over the top = extremist
        terrorist = extremist
        over the top != terrorist
    • rmmst49, on 07/03/2008, -8/+13yeah, like mlk, ghandi, nelson mandela, benazir bhutto, mother theresa, isaac newton and copernicus. all extremists, so, i guess, all harmful.
      • estvir, on 07/04/2008, -4/+9Wow, you're really comparing Stallman to those people? Hahah.
      • rockus, on 07/04/2008, -0/+8Wow, you are equating Benazir Bhutto with the others? Mindblowing!
      • jnordb, on 07/04/2008, -0/+5I guess in Bhutto's case, assassination = deification. As far as Stallman, I am a big open source advocate, but I also don't thing it is morally wrong to pay for software or for a company to create closed source. Open source leads to a better end product, but we should have the freedom to choose which one we want and use what will fit our needs the best. Demanding that all software be one way or the other isn't freedom; it's dictatorship. Freedom is giving people the choice to use whatever software they want, whether it be free or not. Personally, I love Linux and have no desire to go back to Windows other than the occasional package that won't run on Linux. Even that will probably change eventually though...as more good apps are built for Linux and Wine keeps getting better.
      • balaknair, on 07/04/2008, -1/+2@jnordb:
        I agree with you, on all points.
    • Fartag, on 07/03/2008, -4/+6Isn't he pushing for code oversight, and arguing for _your_ control over what _your_ machine is doing? What harm do you claim he's causing by encouraging freer software, and actually providing better alternatives (through GNU software), and speaking against user-controlling software that many companies push today?
    • hapax, on 07/04/2008, -0/+12Sometimes we need extremists, to move the sheer weight of status quo.
      • yalie343, on 07/04/2008, -0/+0Agreed. Stupid grandiose statement.
    • aptanalogy, on 07/04/2008, -0/+6All generalizations are bad.
      • Kamujin, on 07/04/2008, -2/+2All sentences with the word "All" in them are false.
      • Murdats, on 07/04/2008, -1/+2All is a three letter word.

        All sentences saying that all sentences with the word "All" in them are also false.
      • jnordb, on 07/04/2008, -0/+4All generalizations are general in nature and non-specific.
      • Ravatar, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1I see what you did there
  • shadowspawn, on 07/03/2008, -11/+5It's the progress bars. Plenty of mind-bending staring at those since MS's implementations...

    Especially when the last disk of windows95 failed to read.

    And they'd refuse to send a new one.

    Yes, I remember that, Mr. Bill Gates. Go get *****.
    • Sabin, on 07/04/2008, -2/+4so you were one of the three people that didn't have a cdrom drive in 1995
  • Tricon, on 07/03/2008, -5/+16This is an excellent article, and I am passionate about FOSS as well.

    Jeff Atwood makes an interesting point: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/001044.h ...

    While FOSS has truly inspired and created some of the greatest software and technology available, there are some proprietary software that beats its FOSS counterparts hands down. For example, I own an art and technology studio in Central IL. We have a RED camera and thus use Final Cut Pro religiously. That on top of Photoshop, After Effects, and many other software solutions makes it hard for us to adopt Linux exclusively.

    I realize that there is progress being made to WINE some of this software, and I'm looking forward to future developments. Ideally I'd like to see so many users adopt Linux that it becomes a viable market for Adobe and others to begin to write native versions of their software for Linux, but that's a catch 22 as the software needs to become available for users to see Linux as a viable solution. Granted these software only apply to some users, and many could adopt Linux as it is today.

    Yet even if the software does become native, it's still proprietary. What we need are visionary developers and companies to come together and to begin to create competing FOSS for the greater good. As an artist, I want other artists to be able to express themselves -- $10,000 software shouldn't stand in the way of their creativity. I only hope that I can afford to hire developers to develop custom solutions for my company, releasing them open source at the same time.

    If we are going to develop more complex systems and software in the future, collaboration is key.
    • Kingoftherings, on 07/03/2008, -3/+4GIMP is open source, make it better yourself. ;)

      I know not everyone is a programmer though. xD
      • grumpyrain, on 07/04/2008, -2/+8GIMP is great. I have used it as an amateur photographer for about 4 years. But it is to Photoshop what Wordpad is to Word. Good enough for the casual user, but inadequate for someone in the industry trying to get some work done.
    • lokoluis15, on 07/04/2008, -9/+6Im am also very passionate about FOSS, I love taking for granted the time and effort put into a program by the developers. What are they worth? They only exist to create software for me to use to do my job and make money. I earn money with their software all by myself, why should I contribute to them? They should be proud of doing me a service and their families can starve, but be happy knowing they've done some good in the world.

      I realize that there is some progress being made with Google, and Im looking forward for every company to adopt an identical business model. I would much rather pay for things with my privacy, letting google scan and keep every piece of email I ever get to spy on me and make money from advertisements targeted to me. invasion of privacy is a much better price to pay than actual money for a reliable product.

      Yet, even if software does become free, what we need are visionary developers that can create software with no overhead. As an artist, I don't care that software is the most complex type of product to create, and I demand all of the functionality I need at none of the cost, so what if it takes 10,000 man hours? 100,000 dollars in salary shouldnt stand in the way of companies making things I have demand for and providing them to me at no cost.
      • NecroDigg, on 07/04/2008, -2/+1Dugg you up. This is something a lot of people dont understand. What other product do people expect to be not only free, but the I.P. (ie source code) given to them aswell? It may not be a physical item, but that doesn't mean the labor is free. Why bother paying thousands of dollars to developers to create something that wont make you any money?


        That said, i'm a total hypocrit and I pirate stuff. But my point still stands.
      • daengbo, on 07/04/2008, -0/+5So you missed the whole "I hope that I can hire developers" part of his post, eh? What a stupid troll you are.
  • daFilms, on 07/03/2008, -8/+1...
  • ConceptJunkie, on 07/04/2008, -18/+16The software industry will spend the next decade undoing the damage that Microsoft has done. Microsoft has contributed nothing good to the industry in years and world would be better off without it. Support Open Source.
  • shithitinthefan, on 07/04/2008, -6/+3...and now the Dark Lord will oversee the successor of his empire.
    Obe 1, your are only hope.
    • rova, on 07/04/2008, -7/+2Microsoft provided a standard operating system environment so that developers could focus on productive applications instead of compatibility. Their software is far from perfect but I honestly believe that if a better option became available - people would use it. It didn't happen for a lot of years, and just recently there is something competitive. Not clearly better, but for the first time in years there is something worth considering.

      This article is reads like a giagantic troll to me. Anything with that many generalisations can't be expected to be taken seriously.
      • HonoredMule, on 07/04/2008, -1/+4Ever heard of POSIX?

        Simple cross-platform development has been perfectly viable, nay, /convenient/ even when directly running on the OS at a fairly low level, since 1988. Subsequently, programmers have gained the CHOICE of using various languages and operating environments (i.e. C/C++, Java, Python, PHP, GTK+, QT, SQL, etc) as suited their skills, preferences, or the needs of the current task, without any of the restrictions or requirements of single standardized environment...all without losing direct and low-effort portability to any POSIX-compliant OS.

        Microsoft standardization was not a blessing, but merely a set of shackles to keep developers focused on contributing to the value of a Microsoft-only world.
      • mrBitch, on 07/04/2008, -0/+2RE: "Microsoft standardization was not a blessing, but merely a set of shackles to keep developers focused on contributing to the value of a Microsoft-only world."
        Well put.
    • shithitinthefan, on 07/04/2008, -4/+0I am retard, please let me alone.
  • guymandood, on 07/04/2008, -17/+34This is easily the most ridiculous article I've ever read.... There's nothing wrong with Open Source Software. There's nothing wrong with proprietary software either. Proprietary software works - it serves a purpose. Thankfully, there are alternatives for those who choose them - but being a cheerleader for OSS by wasting cycles bashing legitimate for-profit businesses is patently ridiculous.
    • Fartag, on 07/04/2008, -3/+7But if there's nothing wrong with Open Source, why turn a blind eye to the company whose mission it is to kill it?

      http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_arc ...
      http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/05/21/Microsof ...
      http://www.opensource.org/node/280
      http://antitrust.slated.org/www.iowaconsumercase.o ...
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO-Linux_controversi ...
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_Documents

      Plus, stacking ISO boards to push the OOXML standard requiring proprietary implementation knowledge, and an extreme variety of anti-competitive actions.

      The primary complaint includes anti-competitiveness as a monopoly. That's bad, right? Or also too ridiculous to even speak of? Clearly open source software is better for the _users_ everywhere (no catches / gotchas in the code, freedom, etc.). And closed source is better for content producers (retaining control over what users do with it, or know about it) in a backwards free-speech-and-information-restricted business model that we're all better off leaving behind.
      • Ravatar, on 07/04/2008, -1/+2Welcome to capitalism. Some might wonder if one of the goals of Open Source is to kill commercial software. Especially with how Stallman preaches on about how it needs to die.

        *Awaits the massive irrational bury.
      • Fartag, on 07/04/2008, -0/+4@Ravatar

        No buries here. First, I don't think "open source" on its own can be qualified as having any particular agenda. My agenda differs from RMS and Torvalds and yours and guymandood's, etc.

        Mine, for example, is to advocate user freedoms and fast as possible tech advance especially by reconciling these two things:

        1) ensuring no penalties for sharing non-private information
        2) and that content producers are paid according to how great/accurate/important/unique/used their content is

        Capitalism doesn't have to kill free speech to ensure content production is profitable! We don't have to socialize so that everybody is paying for the latest Britany Spears "hit". And closed source, restricted distribution from copyright, and various information restrictive laws become increasingly unnecessary if #2 is accomplished.

        If our legal misinterpretation of information handling is repaired then open source becomes far less fearful to those depending on the current closed source model. DRM more a thing of the past. A lot of people's times would be freed up to work on better things after avoiding required reimplementation and mass recoding of massively interlocked and closed infrastructure. Nobody would be thrown in jail for sharing information. Domestic spying for "terrorists" would _likely_ suspiciously and dramatically decrease in fervor. And technology advance would not be hampered by people discovering all kinds of wonderful things only to have to keep it a secret in order to be paid.
    • mattlee, on 07/04/2008, -2/+7Proprietary software means users are unable to share their software with their friends, study how the software works, modify it for their own needs and even run it for any purpose.

      Those things alone are enough wrong with proprietary software.
      • Smeed, on 07/04/2008, -3/+3It would be pretty ***** stupid to develop tools for the mainstream to study and modify when most of them dont know anything beyond internet explorer. You're not in the mainstream, you have your niche OSS "market". They will never cater to your needs because there is no money in it.
    • invidious, on 07/04/2008, -2/+4"This is easily the most ridiculous article I've ever read.... "

      This piece is actually pretty characteristic of Stallman's views, namely that he believes that *all* software should be free (libre). To put things into perspective, imagine Stallman as a communist (lowercase) arguing against the (perceived) evils of capitalism.
    • daengbo, on 07/04/2008, -2/+7The U.S. is slowly moving toward a less-free system. Software used to be open. Now, 99% of it isn't. It was almost the first to go. Later, science and math started to follow suit. Soon, all knowledge will be locked away. Once logarithms and genes are completely patented, we're all done for. I've experienced this progression first-hand in my lifetime, having started with computing and engineering in the 70s so I'm not just talking out of my ass.
    • Stonekeeper, on 07/04/2008, -1/+2It's a political piece. Get over yourself.
    • cabazorro, on 07/04/2008, -1/+1The difference between a lawyer and a hooker: The lawyer keeps screwing you after you are dead. Propitiatory software is designed to screw on every "product cycle". Then again prostitution is patently legal in some states right? Preposterous!
  • Amiga501, on 07/04/2008, -27/+16I used to have respect for the BBC, but this is ridiculous. They give press time to a fat ass, dirty hobo who thinks we should all be hippies like him. This is the same nut bag that calls the “Free Software Movement” his 23 year old Child. He's out of touch and out of his mind. His life and his work is a disorganized mess, and the very fact he smoked away half his life without attracting a female should be a dead giveaway that this ***** just isn't right.

    Yes, free software is a nice alternative, and it's nice to have choices, but this fat ***** uses illogical scare tactics to try and steer people to his pseudo-religion. No thanks. People who are passionate about computers or technology don't resort to that kind of pie in the sky *****.

    ***** you Stallman. Have another hoagie, you're long overdue for a heart attack, you fat piece of *****.
    • superkendall, on 07/04/2008, -8/+8It's not scare tactics, it's informed prediction - and most of what Stalman has warned about has come to pass!

      He's the thin geek line between you and madness, and you should be thankful someone is fighting on the fringe for things that are important to you and yet beyond your understanding.
      • Amiga501, on 07/04/2008, -7/+3My unemployed, seldom sober neighbor from 10 years ago predicted the second Iraq war. Does that make him some ***** prophet? NO, he's still a drunk *****.

        You talk about Stallman like he's the 320 pound, second coming of Christ. Then again, it's pretty easy to make you tap dance. You just need to be told you're under some threat and you just bend right over and take that propaganda up the ass. There is a hell of a lot more important things going on in the world that some fat ass bitching about having to pay for software. Instead of idolizing this sloth, try doing something REAL in your community, instead of beating off on your 'free as in freedom' soapbox.
      • init100, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1@Amiga501

        "some fat ass bitching about having to pay for software."

        If that is what you think of Mr Stallman, you have not payed much attention to him. His problem isn't about paying for software, it is about freeing software from restrictions. He wants to be able to run, study, modify and distribute software without running into onerous EULAs and the like.

        The ones really bitching about having to pay for software are the pirates. They bitch and moan about having to pay, and then they pirate the software instead. Compare that with Stallman, who writes his own software when he isn't content with the available software. What more could you ask?
    • JohnLawson, on 07/04/2008, -4/+3Amen,

      This "Stallman", is a guy Trying to talk BS so he can feed his kids. A journalist... nothing more.
  • hatgreeting, on 07/04/2008, -8/+15Stallman is a great guy. He's really far out there in open source land, so far out that he's a little ridiculous sometimes, but it takes someone that extreme to make an impact. I especially appreciate his stance on silly software patents. Keep it up, oh Jerry Garcia of the software world.
    • superkendall, on 07/04/2008, -2/+13The thing is he doesn't seem that far out now that we've had a taste of what software patents really mean.

      Wherever he seems far out now, may not seem nearly so crazy in five years. Just remember that.
  • Szandor, on 07/04/2008, -5/+17"There's also the Digital Restrictions Management: software features designed to "stop" you from accessing your files freely. Increased restriction of users seems to be the main advance of Vista. "

    Someone explain this to me, especially the last sentence.
    • mphree, on 07/04/2008, -10/+7Oh the possibilities of misinformation...

      Exactly where is the DRM in Vista? I have witnessed absolutely no evidence of these so-called DRM advancements from XP to Vista. Hey Stallman, come back when I can get dual monitor running on your oh-so-fabulous Linux within 30 seconds, like I can on XP/Vista.

      Don't get me wrong, open-source software has its perfectly legitimate uses. However, misinformation is absolutely no way to make a valid argument. Buried.
      • mattlee, on 07/04/2008, -3/+2http://www.electronista.com/articles/08/01/04/vist ...

        http://badvista.fsf.org/blog/analysis-of-microsoft ...
      • mphree, on 07/04/2008, -2/+3Why push the blame completely on Microsoft? Because they are just one part of HDCP? Blame some hardware manufacturers also.
      • balaknair, on 07/04/2008, -2/+2@mphree: I do blame the hardware manufacturers as well, for rolling over and implementing the tiltbits and other crap at MS behest. The big media studios put pressure on MS, who in turn arm twisted the hardware vendors, who obediently implemented this stuff at the hardware level(and of course the cost for this additional 'development' was passed on to the end user who bought the unfinished inadequately tested products). The way I see it, if MS had told the media studios to take a walk, it wouldn't have hurt MS, it would have hurt the MPAA and RIAA more, MS had the option of standing up for its consumers. The hardware vendors on the other hand would lose 90% plus of their target market if MS rewrote its software to lock them out(if they had all gotten together and resisted, they might have had a chance). So MS does deserve 99.99% of the blame for this one.
    • daengbo, on 07/04/2008, -1/+8DRM is baked into the core of Vista. Google is your friend on this:
      http://www.forbes.com/2007/02/10/microsoft-vista-d ...
    • RoyalShrubber, on 07/04/2008, -4/+3'software features designed to "stop" you from accessing /your/ files freely'


      It's worth pointing out that songs /were not/ yours from the beginning. In most cases atists/record companies keep all rights for themselves. You are effectively only paying for the right to listen to that music. For example if you buy normal CD (which aren't DRMed), you can't give copies of that CD to your friends legally. Files aren't yours, never were and probably never will.

      It's shame UK citizens are forced paying BBC which later allow such ***** artists to write for them.
    • DotNetWill, on 07/05/2008, -1/+1It means the author has no clue. DRM stops you playing media files you haven't paid for like car keys stop you from driving a car you haven't bought.
  • Pinkertinkle, on 07/04/2008, -3/+37I just noticed I'm not using any Microsoft products while reading this article. Sweet.
  • SemiSarcastic, on 07/04/2008, -18/+12Open source doesn't pay if you want to fill stomaches.
    • mattlee, on 07/04/2008, -1/+10Where did you get that idea from? There's thousands of people getting paid to work on free software.. companies like Red Hat, Sun, Novell, Intel, IBM, Joyent, Nokia... all paying people to work on free software development.
    • Stonekeeper, on 07/04/2008, -1/+6I'm guessing by your name that the statement was semi-sarcastic. I still dugg you down because some people may just believe you blindly. You somehow link monetary benefit with the inability to read source code. You probably base that assumption on the fact that if you have the source code you can redistribute the goods without your good self being rewarded monetarily. Well, that's what businesses like to call "piracy" and being "closed source" doesn't seem to help them stop it.
  • mooseontheloose, on 07/04/2008, -25/+11lol @ Linux nerds

    Give up. Nobody wants to use your ***** products. Ever.
    • saejinn, on 07/04/2008, -4/+6Sheep.
    • demizer, on 07/04/2008, -4/+2lol @ you

      You more than likely pay for your software.
    • GrantTLC, on 07/04/2008, -1/+6Just because you've become comfortable with the corporate dick up your ass...
    • JohnLawson, on 07/04/2008, -0/+4Funny, but just to name a few of the largest corporations on earth that use linux.

      Google, Sun, Yahoo, Many french facilities, Indian facilities, One laptop per child(there is a windows version too, for argument's sake).

      over 500 distributions didn't come from no where mate.
      Giving you thumbs up though...Because it was funny.
  • yalie343, on 07/04/2008, -3/+3Dugg for the article title
  • Bannedx5, on 07/04/2008, -1/+7unethical customer treatment of customers. lol. Go somewhere else, and buy some other product. OH wait.,....
    • init100, on 07/04/2008, -1/+2What's wrong with him posting his views? If you disagree, fine, but others may agree with him.
  • sonicEd, on 07/04/2008, -11/+4Buying stuff sucks!
  • vvargoal, on 07/04/2008, -15/+6My god, how dare Microsoft make us agree to their terms to use software they created to sell to us. I demand free *****! Enslave the programmers to do our bidding! The free market must be stopped!
    • paulsmith288, on 07/04/2008, -0/+4If you actively went out and bought that ***** , maybe fair enough. When its forced on ~85% of clueless computer users then its not on. Free market - what planet are you on?
    • init100, on 07/04/2008, -0/+2Well, they should put the EULA on the outside of the box so that you can read it before you buy it. Actually, that this is never done probably means that EULAs are unenforceable here (it has never been tried, but we have pretty strong consumer protections).
  • Rudiger81, on 07/04/2008, -9/+3Should tout about what makes your product better, not what makes your competitors product worse. Liked the article till the half way down the "Gratuitous incompatibilities" where it started becoming a hate session.
    • rova, on 07/04/2008, -4/+3The "Gratuitous incompatibilities" phrase in the article almost made be choke as well. Let's look at the deployment challenges on each of the available platforms. Microsoft has by far the most backwards compatible platform.
      • daengbo, on 07/04/2008, -2/+4Backwards compatibility in Win is great, and Microsoft spend a huge amount of time during the release cycle on it. Curiosly, they have a pretty good record of breaking the applications of the competitor they have in their sites at the time, though.
      • balaknair, on 07/04/2008, -2/+3'gratuitous incompatibilities'
        Sure MS has the most backwards compatible platform as long it's other MS products it has to be compatible with. Updates seem to selectively break only competitors products. Hence, the term 'gratuitous'.
      • ADINSX, on 07/04/2008, -1/+2From my personal experience, backwards compatibility in GNU/Linux is far better than in windows, in terms of software and hardware.
  • wobegon, on 07/04/2008, -10/+2"Microsoft, Apple, Adobe, and the rest, offer you software that gives them power over you. A change in executives or companies is not important. What we need to change is this system."

    Buried for predictably grouping Apple in with Microsoft and Adobe.
    • aliguana, on 07/04/2008, -2/+12why are Apple different? If anything they are worse, because you get hardware lock-in too. At least I can install Windows and Adobe products on any machine I want to.
      • Pake, on 07/04/2008, -0/+7You can install Windows on an Apple computer... the problem with Apple is the opposite in that you can't install OSX on anything but an Apple computer legally.
      • Pake, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1Bah *****, I replied to the wrong person. This was meant to be for Wobegon as to why Apple is on the list.
      • boobyman, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1@Pake: The EULA isn't a legal agreement. Their contract can't go above the law (at least here in Sweden). Just slap an apple sticker on your chassi, run osx86 and enjoy your ride :)
    • Arghblarg, on 07/04/2008, -1/+4One word for you: iTunes. Actually, two: BIOS (sorry, don't remember the name for Apple's proprietary firmware that ties Apple's OS to their artifically over-priced hardware. Go look it up.)

      Try to move those songs to a PC from your Mac, then tell me their software doesn't give them power over you. Apple's just as much a DRM whore as the rest.
      • ADINSX, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1It's called EFI, and it was developed by Intel as the successor to BIOS. Some higher-end versions of Windows have EFI support, such as Windows Server 2008.

        EFI basically sucks though because it is more complicated and aids vendors in locking in customers to their platform.
    • daengbo, on 07/04/2008, -1/+4Please get real. Once you go Apple, you don't go back. You are in a vertically integrated hardware/software stack from a single vendor with enormous conversion costs if you decide to leave.

      That's why Apple works well and the people are happy. Don't pretend you have any freedom, though. If you did, Apple couldn't charge you double market value for upgrades and repairs.
      • stinkyft, on 07/04/2008, -0/+0hes right when you buy apple you dont go back well in my case atleast.i was a pc user moslty linux but keept on reading good things about apple. so sold my pc got a g5 imac. after awhile i bought a core 2 duo pc and was running linux sold the g5.but after awhile i started to miss my g5 so i got rid of the pc. and went back to apple but still have a linux partion on my wifes comp for those days i feel like using linux
      • covertbadger, on 07/04/2008, -1/+2Balls, I went Apple then went back - now use Windows and Linux and have no Apple systems at all (for now). It wasn't hard at all; the only thing I missed was the movie-editing software. Firefox, gvim, and bash are available on all systems. iTunes is easily replaced with Amarok or Winamp. The only apps I haven't replaced have been gimmicky ones that never got used much anyway, like Delicious Library.
    • wobegon, on 07/04/2008, -1/+1Ugh, people are misinformed. Most of Mac OS X is open: Unix, Darwin, FOSS. They promote open standards: H.264, MP3, and AAC. Safari is an open, standards-compliant browser. Also, they don't have a monopoly, give me a break! Does Nintendo have a monopoly on the Wii's operating system? Does Sony have a monopoly on the PS3's operating system? Does Microsoft have a monopoly on the 360, or Zune's operating systems? Of course, not, they're embedded systems. It's your choice to use any of these products and their integrated OSs and Macs of course can also run Linux and/or Windows. Meanwhile, Windows is the de facto operating system on PCs, which is the result of anti-competitive, anti-consumer exclusive OEM licensing deals that stifle competition from alternatives like Linux and FreeBSD. MS also pushes proprietary, closed formats like WMA, WMV, even the Zune's DRM that tie the user to their operating system. Adobe, similarly, has too much control thanks to their proprietary, closed Flash runtime that have only ever worked well on Windows.
  • jackdaniels06, on 07/04/2008, -5/+7Yes, open source is the way to go for it is the light side of The Force. The Emperor (Bill Gates), Darth Vader (Steve Ballmer) and Microsoft (The Empire) must be stopped.
  • odinfire, on 07/04/2008, -8/+2Who in their right mind "pays" for any Microsoft product or download. Seriously, that's what we have the internet and binsearch for.
    • e2superman, on 07/04/2008, -2/+6Well I suppose people that chose to not break the law and make sure that the developers get some $$. Even if you disagree with the cost of the product it is their right to charge whatever they want for it. If you don't like it use something else.
    • Stonekeeper, on 07/04/2008, -1/+4Right! And ironically it's always the open source crowd that get wrongly labeled as a bunch of thieving pirates.
  • e2superman, on 07/04/2008, -11/+2So who does Company/Gov XYZ call for tech support. Clent Support. Enterprise issues? Accountability for software issues and fixes. Open Source is cool but severly lacking here. This is a major reason why any large company of gov agency will not go open source.

    Oh I forgot to mention that Open Source software has foreign coding in it (open source is open source) and hence there is a risk of bugs and other snooping code to be placed in without the person running the code knowing. A gov agency would be stupid to run code like this and just "trust" that all the open source coders we the "good guys".
    • mattlee, on 07/04/2008, -2/+6Who do they call? Whoever they like... free software provides a free market opportunity, in which many companies can compete based on the quality of the service they can provide.

      Why should anyone trust a company that won't let people see how things work? Free software might not always be perfect, but there's no way you're telling me that proprietary software is safer?
      • Smeed, on 07/04/2008, -3/+1"Why should anyone trust a company that won't let people see how things work?" For the same reason you trust the companies that you buy most of your tangible items from. They sure as hell wont hand you a slip of paper explaining how to build their product.
    • daengbo, on 07/04/2008, -0/+5You could call Novell, IBM, or Red Hat if you like. They're pretty big names in the industry. In fact, Unix installations have almost all gone open source. It's the Windows installations where the transition costs and document formats make migrating uneconomical. I think the article even mentioned lock-in.

      Your second paragraph is just silly. Open is open. You can look to see whether there are back doors or not, and that's the reason why many paranoid non-U.S. governments are pushing to move away from MS products. "Intel" has a different meaning in the government sector than it does in computing.
    • balaknair, on 07/04/2008, -0/+5Ever heard of something called SELinux? It's a little security thingy in Linux. Written by the NSA. Used in many current Linux distros.
      It's open source. Which means that you can look at the source code and check if there's any snooping code in it. You can also modify it your heart's content and make it more secure.
  • urbandude, on 07/04/2008, -10/+5This is a poorly written article that doesn't add anything new to 'Microsoft hating'. I think the BBC was a bit premature in hitting the Publish button on this one...
  • ThatNaysayer, on 07/04/2008, -10/+1Very nice article, though admittedly a bit off. Yes Microsoft is not the most wonderful company ever. Far, far from it. Though there are some claims that are highly exaggerated, such as the claim that you cannot hire a programmer to make software tailored to your companies needs, and some that are not.

    While I do agree that free software is an amazing thing, and that there are many good free apps out there. Some times there are "proprietary" programs that are proprietary for a reason. They are consistent, they work, and they have been proven to do things efficiently. Sadly Windows is not part of that selection of proprietary software. Every Operating System is in some way proprietary, some are just worse then others.
    • mattlee, on 07/04/2008, -0/+5How is GNU/Linux proprietary?
      • ThatNaysayer, on 07/04/2008, -0/+0I was not referring to Linux/GNU when I said all operating systems. I was refering to the "mainsrtream" operating systems. I am actually a big supporter of wide spread adoption of Linux. I give out live Linux CDs to most people I do support work for, some of who have adopted Linux as their main OS.

        I just don't think that proprietary software is as bad as everyone is out to make it.
  • Pake, on 07/04/2008, -15/+11Want to beat Microsoft? Build a better product. Linux is nice, but it still has some problems regarding ease of use and there's no real set in stone standards for software creation, so many programs have trouble running on other systems. The best thing Linux (and even Apple) could do is try to create a way to have .exe files run on their OS without requiring a emulator. If they can't do it legally, then they need to file a complaint over that and nothing more. The sooner the computer industry moves towards one standard, the better for software developers who would like to create for all OS, but can't do to cost and the better for users who will be given a choice of what OS to run.
    • Stonekeeper, on 07/04/2008, -2/+6You make the classic mistake of assuming Microsoft is where it's at based on the quality of it's product. Did you recently change discipline?
      • Pake, on 07/04/2008, -2/+2Initially, yes, they did win out by building a better product. You don't see everyone running on Apple computers, and you want to know why? They got beat fair and square by MS.
    • JohnLawson, on 07/04/2008, -3/+3"Want to beat Microsoft? Build a better product."

      Nicely said mate.
    • scex, on 07/04/2008, -1/+4Lack of cross-platform applications is more of an issue with proprietary software than with free software.If all software was free and open-source then it would possible to port these applications to any operating system of your choice.So having one software standard is irrelevant in the free-software world.
      • Pake, on 07/04/2008, -2/+1It's not more of an issue with proprietary software. It's an issue with ignorant OS coders who would rather do it their way than create a standard.
    • ADINSX, on 07/04/2008, -0/+3You don't need an emulator to run Windows executables, you can use Wine.

      W ine
      I s
      N ot an
      E mulator
  • jnieman, on 07/04/2008, -9/+2This article seems completely unnecessary to me. It is a waste of bandwidth to talk about why the oppressive software giants are evil, as it is to discuss how their practices are self-centered. If you think that software is bad, or that those in charge of it are mishandling the rights granted by that software, then stop talking writing bbc articles and focus on writing better software. If it's free and open to the public for editing, all the better. But how can we fault corporations for making their software closed and proprietary? Does this make them selfish? Of course it does. But what does that have to do with it? Their purpose is solely to make money. If anyone is confused about this fact, I urge you to look at the backward and bloated state the software industry is in, a state created by the desire for profits and the quest to lock in customers. But it makes money. Plain and simple. And until these giants are met with software that makes them do a better job, make better software, or better allow others to do so, that is not likely to change. So let's all stop talking about how "evil" Microsoft is with sensational reports (let's also stop quoting with the phrase "It said, in effect") and get working on a better solution.
    • daengbo, on 07/04/2008, -0/+3The writer of the article started GNU and helped to create one of the foremost and complete comilers in the world. In fact, the whole tool-chain is practically his. I don't think you should be telling him to "write better software."

      I'm not even a big fan of Stallman, but I'd never be ignorant enough to say he needs to write good software.
      • jnieman, on 07/04/2008, -0/+0I by no means meant to imply that any software written to by stallman was bad or that he needs to do a better job. Like you said, the guy started GNU. I merely wanted to point out that complaining about how terrible microsoft is isn't going to fix anything. If we want to make a better technological world, let's *continue* to write good software that people will want to use over windows. Let's rely on the merits of our code, not on how much microsoft sucks.
      • init100, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1@jnieman

        Maybe he needs a break from the coding? Writing an article is pretty different from coding, so maybe this was such a break.
  • physicx, on 07/04/2008, -11/+3This is horribly written, I am amazed that this is the BBC. I kept reading to see more of the trainwreck.
  • Axtell2k5, on 07/04/2008, -14/+4Give me a break. Gates and MS brought uniformity and compatibility to a PC world that had no semblance of either before they arrived. Now the revisionist historians want to come in and say how bad things are, ignoring the obvious and forgetting how terrible a PC world would be today had it not been for Gates and his visionary view of the world.

    But the apple fanboys (apparently including this author) want to re-write history, and propose that somehow, someway we'd be better off or further along if there had never been a MS or Gates pushing software to all work together, or to look similar so as to keep users from having to learn different sets of rules for every program.

    Nobody is forcing anyone to use Windows....if you want to run any OS, you have that option. Why do people insist on saying they're somehow forced to use any part of windows? That argument is intellectually lazy, has no merit in today's tech world.

    This author is trying to use Gates' retirement to reprint years old complaints and sounds like an apple-phile complaining that his toy-like, overpriced, dumbed-down computer is still dwarfed by the number of Windows users. Well of course! Windows hardware is much cheaper, much more integrated, and easier to work on and with.
    • GrantTLC, on 07/04/2008, -0/+3"Nobody is forcing anyone to use Windows....if you want to run any OS, you have that option. Why do people insist on saying they're somehow forced to use any part of windows? That argument is intellectually lazy, has no merit in today's tech world"

      Look up the word 'Monopoly', will you? Oh, and you might want to do some research as well - Microsoft may not be putting guns to people's heads but they've done just about everything else in their quest to be the only game in town. Calling an argument 'Intellectually lazy' while ignoring - or simply being ignorant of - the incredibly bad track record they have is pure hypocrisy.
    • mvent2, on 07/04/2008, -0/+4"But the apple fanboys (apparently including this author)"

      ...huh?
    • daengbo, on 07/04/2008, -0/+3Somehow I doubt the head of the GNU Free Software movement is an Apple-phile. Wow. Learn about what you're comment on before you hit "Reply."
    • kiput, on 07/04/2008, -0/+2"But the apple fanboys (apparently including this author)"

      Idiot. Go back to school.
    • ADINSX, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1troll troll is troll
  • breich, on 07/04/2008, -12/+12I'm sorry but as a programmer I have to say... ***** you Stallman. I use and contribute to open source, but charity and good intentions have yet to pay my bills. The day my users demand, receive, and understand my source code is the day my knowledge, degree, and expertise become worthless, and call me crazy but I don't want to see that happen.
    • WiseBoy, on 07/04/2008, -1/+6Well, then don't contribute to free software. Neither RMS nor anybody else can force you to do that. But it doesn't mean that Stallman is wrong.
    • ADINSX, on 07/04/2008, -1/+2You are angry because Stallman wishes that more computer users understand the internal working of their computer? You are angry because he wants people to have to right to study source code, so that they may learn from it? You wish people to remain ignorant, simply because it means you make less money if they are intelligent?

      Because that's what it sounds like to me.
  • oceanboy81, on 07/04/2008, -13/+2Richard Stallman is a dirty hobo who cannot get laid. Even if he paid.
  • Smeed, on 07/04/2008, -12/+1Oh wow another bunch of ***** arguing about linux. What a ***** surprise.
  • rlbond86, on 07/04/2008, -10/+3Open source is great but it doesn't work for everything. GIMP is not nearly as good as Photoshop, and OSS video editors are virtually nonexistent, to name a few problems. Money is a big incentive for proprietary software.
    Also, Richard Stallman is an attention whore. An attention whore who can't make a kernel to save his life.
  • bobbi21, on 07/04/2008, -9/+1Just wondering, doesn't every company try to do what microsoft does? sure open source is good and all but every company tries to keep a monopoly on their product. You don't see food companies giving away their secret recipes or whatever.
    And last i heard piracy was still illegal and obviously causes companies to lose some money. So why wouldn't they have safe guards trying to protect from that?

    Most of us here of course disagree with the law but it's still the law. do we yell at cops for arresting ppl who grow marijuana? of course not. we get upset at the law sure but not the ppl upholding it. Of course microsoft is also trying to keep it law but if ur company stood to lose all that money you'd do the same. It's called capitalism. People in general won't give up money if they don't have to and that's all microsoft is doing. If we're gonna get mad at microsoft we have to get mad at every big corporation (which I am mad at but I'm mad pretty equally amongst them)
  • flockqqa1, on 07/04/2008, -9/+1tyytyrtytryrty
    rthrtytr
  • flockqqa1, on 07/04/2008, -9/+1gfdgfdgs
  • mindshaft, on 07/04/2008, -9/+5Quoted: "If you copy it to share with your friend, which is simple good-neighbourliness, they call you a "pirate"."
    Um... if you copy a book and share it with a friend, they call you a "thief". I don't think you can just ignore the concept of copyright for your own argument's sake.
    • JohnLawson, on 07/04/2008, -4/+3The guy who wrote this article wasn't' a power user... merely a journalist.

      I totally agree with what you have to say.
      But seriously, ***** the DMCA. =)
      • init100, on 07/04/2008, -0/+2"The guy who wrote this article wasn't' a power user... merely a journalist."

        You have no idea what you are talking about. This was not written by some journalist. Read up on who Richard Stallman is.
  • vonskippy, on 07/04/2008, -11/+2Who ***** cares what Stallman thinks. How many $billions has he gave away?
    • init100, on 07/04/2008, -0/+2So if you rob a bank, and hand over 50% of the money to charities, should you get off the hook?
  • JohnLawson, on 07/04/2008, -9/+1'Gratuitous incompatibilities'? WTF guy!? That's ridiculous. I'm sure there are 100's if not thousands of incompatibilities related to windows. It's the vendor's job to release the drivers NOT Microsoft's. Some mac people might say something about vista and ITunes incompatibility... I got one word for ya, safari. The fact that Apple makes it illegal to use the web browser on a windows machine is ridiculous.

    "Gates may be gone, but the walls and bars of proprietary software he helped create remain, for now"
    What a load of crap. Mac is anything but open. You could make the argument that they are trying to become more open... But, they are still a million times more proprietary than Microsoft has EVER been. I would list some examples, but the list would be so long that it would be considered spam.

    ""Free" refers to freedom" So, Only pirates know what it's like to be free? Cause that's what i got out of that. What a moron. The guy who wrote this article is a journalist and nothing more.

    Take care mates.
    • paulsmith288, on 07/04/2008, -0/+4man you must be pissed gates has gone.
      Are you gonna take down those posters of bill g in your bedroom? No, I bet you have some of balmer sweating like an ape ready to put up now.
    • scex, on 07/04/2008, -0/+5You do realise that Richard Stallman is as much against Apple as he is against Microsoft?
      As for the free part, I'm not going to even bother with that.Suffice to say it has nothing to with the monetary cost of the product.
    • balaknair, on 07/04/2008, -1/+3"The fact that Apple makes it illegal to use the web browser on a windows machine is ridiculous."

      Now that comment is hilarious. You mean to say that Apple released a Windows version of Safari(and pushed it hidden among Quicktime and iTunes security updates to millions of Windows users) because they didn't want anyone to use it?

      And what are you talking about in your comment about MS' 'Gratuitous incompatibilities'? It's got nothing to do with hardware vendors and windows' driver incompatibilities. The author here is talking about MS abusing its monopoly status Desktop OS market share to push out competitors in other areas. eg: bundling Internet Explorer with the OS(in spite of it being a security nightmare) to stamp out netscape and corrupting vendor neutral standards with Exmbrace-Extend-Extinguish tactics and introducing its own 'de facto' standards.

      To improve Windows Server sales in the server market, MS added 'features' to the Windows desktop OS and MS Office that were incompatible with rivals' products. Since they already had a dominant market share in these two fields. Competitors were not allowed to modify their products to interact with MS products. .doc, .xls, .ppt binary formats used by MS Office(versions prior to Office 2007) do not render predictably with other office suites(like OO.o or Lotus). Not because OO.o is incompatible with .doc/.xls/.ppt files or the other way round. But because proprietary extensions have been added in that others cannot use without violating MS patents. If you want to use one MS product, you'll find it functions properly only with other MS products. This is not accidental, but intentional.

      This is called vendor lock in(and you're absolutely right about Apple being even worse than MS in this regard), it locks the consumer in and the competition out. This is something MS has been tried and convicted for both in the US and in the EU. Each time they came out saying "we won't do it again" and went ahead pulling the same crap till they were caught again. Is it any wonder that people are so skeptical about MS' intentions? They thoroughly deserve the reputation they got, of being a greedy dishonest unethical corporation(with a whole ***** of money which they use to buy politicians, favorable product reviews, and apparently at times, even reputed bodies like the ISO).

      "The guy who wrote this article is a journalist and nothing more."
      You might want to get your facts straight.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_stallman
  • socialismEVIL, on 07/04/2008, -8/+2[insert harageous microsoft slam here plus obsequious praise of opensource]
  • chitta, on 07/04/2008, -0/+14I've seen quite a bit of OSS bashing here. I feel some people confuse free software relating to free price.

    imho
    1. OSS does not have to be for free. See what RedHat and Novell (to name a few) are doing by providing enterprise class product, support and services.
    2. Open Source creates a competitive environment. Microsoft did not bring a uniformity to personal computing. IBM did it by making their PC architecture open.
    3. DRM restricts your freedom to do what you want with your music. Why can't I rip my music CDs so that I can listen it on my MP3 player? It is not restricting my freedom?
    4. Why did Microsoft have to propose and push through the OOXML standard when we already had the Open Document Format?
    5. Stallman is not a Apple fanboy.
    6. Those who are complaining that Linux is not easy to use have obviously not tried the latest Linux distributions. Installing Linux is almost as easy and installing Windows. How many novice Windows users have installed Windows by themselves?
    7. Has Microsoft's spending millions and millions of dollars to develop Vista paid off?
    8. Proprietary software companies use their cash to not just develop software but also buy off corrupt govt. agencies into using their software.
    9. OSS software (for example Mozilla Firefox) is most of the times more standards compliant then Internet Explorer.
    10. I am okay with paying to software but not for it restricting me in how I can use it. If I buy a media player, I don't want it to tell me that I can only play a MP3 a particular number of times and on only a select MP3 players.



    • balaknair, on 07/04/2008, -0/+6Just a minor correction- Point number 6:"Installing Linux is almost as easy and installing Windows"

      Having installed various versions of Windows since Win95 to WinXP, I have to say installing Linux is easier than installing Windows, at least with all the distros I'd recommend- Ubuntu being the best of the lot in that respect, but PCLinuxOS and Mandriva are close behind. Fedora/RHEL and OpenSUSE/SLED aren't that friendly to Linux noobs. But they're still far easier than installing either WinXP or Vista. I've tried Vista only once, never going down that path again- it was like they'd replaced dll hell with driver hell, though the install itself was easy enough(the validation part was horribly irritating though, almost made me wish I'd used a crack/hack. Everything you need on a Linux box is right there, no need to pop in a separate manufacturer CD/DVD for drivers, no need to install MS Office, Photoshop etc etc separately. There are still a few troublesome areas Linux like WiFi and nVidia/ATI proprietary drivers, but things are improving on that front rapidly, and I'm sure in a few years time once a critical mass of users is achieved, the vendors themselves will solve these issues.
  • chris9902, on 07/04/2008, -10/+2blow it out your ass Stallman. People don't have the right to the work of others.
    • init100, on 07/04/2008, -0/+2Tell that to all the pirates instead of to Mr Stallman, who writes his own software when he isn't satisfied with what's available.
  • balaknair, on 07/04/2008, -2/+8Great article. Shame on MS for their FUD tactics. I only wish they'd spend as much money, time and effort on writing good code as they do on marketing(and on their lawyers and FUD agents).
  • Soval, on 07/04/2008, -0/+9"Digital Restrictions Management" :D
  • Lawrencesss, on 07/04/2008, -6/+1I thought this was about Microsoft chocolate.
  • xatx2, on 07/04/2008, -7/+1quit your bitching
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 62 of 62 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.