What media player do you use?

Quote from: frostee on February 07, 2010, 01:07:48 PM

Well you pay the upfront cost for Windows, which includes professional support if needed

And if you don't need the support then you've paid an extortionate price for an OS so Bill Gates can get another extension built onto his home. Wouldn't you rather pay for the support as you need it? Furthermore, wouldn't you rather have a choice of who you can buy support from, rather than being locked into Microsoft because nobody else can see or modify the source code?

Actually I would prefer going to the one source, as would a lot of people. Simpler that way.

Actually I would prefer going to the one source, as would a lot of people. Simpler that way.

So if Microsoft goes bankrupt, or refuses you service because of small print in the EULA, you'd prefer not to have an alternative. I see.

Quote from: frostee on February 08, 2010, 12:20:42 AM

Actually I would prefer going to the one source, as would a lot of people. Simpler that way.

So if Microsoft goes bankrupt, or refuses you service because of small print in the EULA, you'd prefer not to have an alternative. I see.

I think it is far more likely that the Ubuntu developers get bored and decide to not make any more versions or updates, than Microsoft going bankrupt. You are guaranteed absolutely nothing with free software.

I think it is far more likely that the Ubuntu developers get bored and decide to not make any more versions or updates, than Microsoft going bankrupt. You are guaranteed absolutely nothing with free software.

If Canonical stopped developing Ubuntu, someone else would continue it. If Microsoft goes bankrupt, nobody else can continue developing it because nobody else has access to the source code, or the right to use it.

Quote from: frostee on February 08, 2010, 01:17:29 AM

I think it is far more likely that the Ubuntu developers get bored and decide to not make any more versions or updates, than Microsoft going bankrupt. You are guaranteed absolutely nothing with free software.

If Canonical stopped developing Ubuntu, someone else would continue it. If Microsoft goes bankrupt, nobody else can continue developing it because nobody else has access to the source code, or the right to use it.

You cannot be sure however. I believe your beloved Ardour would be at more risk of a loss of interest by developers and not everyone would be prepared to pick it up. Inconsistencies and uncertainty is the issue here

You cannot be sure however. I believe your beloved Ardour would be at more risk of a loss of interest by developers and not everyone would be prepared to pick it up. Inconsistencies and uncertainty is the issue here

The only uncertainty is what Microsoft does behind closed doors. Ardour is completely free software and anyone can modify it, fork it or take over development if they so choose. All it takes is one person who is prepared to take over, not "everyone". Besides, even if development stopped, that wouldn't make the existing software unuseable, but in your case it would invalidate the support you've already paid for.

This is going nowhere: Microsoft won't be going out of business anytime soon
1. They have the world hooked, and we are all assured our new Windows versions and updates equalling $$$ for Microsoft
2. Even if they were in trouble, through our dependance, governments would most certainly bail them out

Also due to government integration I am sure they would be frequently checked by government intelligence for anything going on behind closed doors, as it is a very influential company. You have absolutely no proof whatsoever that they do anything dodgy behind closed doors, only suggesting that they 'could' implement spyware and such, though I doubt they would be that retarted as the government would be very quick to set them straight if they did. At least on government computers.

@Parsifal - if everyone was on board then this could well be a good idea.  Most people are so naive and stupid when it comes to computers in the first place they just go with a big brand they can trust or something the computer store guy recommends.  You must remember people are extremely apathetic about change in anyway, especially with technology like computers that keep changing.
Myself, you have certainly made me learn a thing or 2, but even then, I will not change what I am doing. 

This is going nowhere: Microsoft won't be going out of business anytime soon

It's irrelevant whether or not it will happen; the point is that if both of the companies that manufacture our respective OSs went bankrupt tomorrow, I would be in a much better position to recover than you would, purely because GNU/Linux is free software and Windows is not.

1. They have the world hooked, and we are all assured our new Windows versions and updates equalling $$$ for Microsoft
2. Even if they were in trouble, through our dependance, governments would most certainly bail them out

1. I don't see how you can possibly consider the world being hooked to one software company a good thing. In fact, you even trying to make your point with this shows that you have missed mine.
2. I'd rather not put my faith in the government to do this, but that is irrelevant; again, you have missed the point.

Also due to government integration I am sure they would be frequently checked by government intelligence for anything going on behind closed doors, as it is a very influential company. You have absolutely no proof whatsoever that they do anything dodgy behind closed doors, only suggesting that they 'could' implement spyware and such, though I doubt they would be that retarted as the government would be very quick to set them straight if they did. At least on government computers.

Uh, how is the government going to check what's going on without infringing their own ridiculous copyright laws? If anything, Microsoft has control over what the government is doing because America is so capitalist in nature that money means more than political standing.

@Parsifal - if everyone was on board then this could well be a good idea.  Most people are so naive and stupid when it comes to computers in the first place they just go with a big brand they can trust or something the computer store guy recommends.  You must remember people are extremely apathetic about change in anyway, especially with technology like computers that keep changing.
Myself, you have certainly made me learn a thing or 2, but even then, I will not change what I am doing. 

Bear in mind that I didn't start this argument. I simply pointed out what I consider to be a flaw in foobar2000 (based on my own criteria for choosing software to use) and frostee started attacking me about it. If people understand what's out there and still choose to use proprietary software, that's their own business. I might think it's a silly decision, but part of freedom is having the freedom not to choose freedom.

I'm getting deja vu.

If Canonical stopped developing Ubuntu, someone else would continue it. If Microsoft goes bankrupt, nobody else can continue developing it because nobody else has access to the source code, or the right to use it.

Somebody else could continue it, which is doubtful as it is not profitable. Bankruptcy does not obliterate a company or it's IP, and it's software could be developed/supported by Microsoft after a reorganization or a different company. This is a very likely result as Microsoft software has an enormous amount of users.

Quote from: frostee on February 08, 2010, 02:17:15 AM

This is going nowhere: Microsoft won't be going out of business anytime soon

It's irrelevant whether or not it will happen; the point is that if both of the companies that manufacture our respective OSs went bankrupt tomorrow, I would be in a much better position to recover than you would, purely because GNU/Linux is free software and Windows is not.

That logic is without the qualification that banruptcy is not equally likely for both companies.

If anything, Microsoft has control over what the government is doing because America is so capitalist in nature that money means more than political standing.

If that were the case it probably wouldn't compromise it's own security with NSA backdoors.

I use foobar btw.

Somebody else could continue it, which is doubtful as it is not profitable.

Personal gain is the only reason people write software. Nobody does it because they want a certain program and want to share it with others like themselves, or for the sake of benefiting the free software community. Except, you know, the people who wrote and maintain the music player, torrent client, IM client, software multitracker and many key components of the operating system that I use every day.

Bankruptcy does not obliterate a company or it's IP, and it's software could be developed/supported by Microsoft after a reorganization or a different company. This is a very likely result as Microsoft software has an enormous amount of users.

Irrelevant. The point is that you are dependent on Microsoft (or a successor company) to continue providing this development and support.

That logic is without the qualification that banruptcy is not equally likely for both companies.

Again, this is irrelevant to what I was saying.

If that were the case it probably wouldn't compromise it's own security with NSA backdoors.

Who's going to stop them? The 91% of people who use Windows and are free to look at the source and make it do what they want it to?

Quote from: Althalus on February 09, 2010, 08:57:54 PM

Somebody else could continue it, which is doubtful as it is not profitable.

Personal gain is the only reason people write software. Nobody does it because they want a certain program and want to share it with others like themselves, or for the sake of benefiting the free software community. Except, you know, the people who wrote and maintain the music player, torrent client, IM client, software multitracker and many key components of the operating system that I use every day.

Canonical spends money to develop Ubuntu and does not profit or even cover costs. Any succesor not motivated by profit would start with less resources and not be able to develop it at the current level.

Quote from: Althalus on February 09, 2010, 08:57:54 PM

Bankruptcy does not obliterate a company or it's IP, and it's software could be developed/supported by Microsoft after a reorganization or a different company. This is a very likely result as Microsoft software has an enormous amount of users.

Irrelevant. The point is that you are dependent on Microsoft (or a successor company) to continue providing this development and support.

You were saying that further development of a software product under a proprietary license is not possible if the owning company goes bankrupt, it is posssible.

Quote from: Althalus on February 09, 2010, 08:57:54 PM

That logic is without the qualification that banruptcy is not equally likely for both companies.

Again, this is irrelevant to what I was saying.

You were making a value judgement that the probability of Ubunut being developed after Canonical going bankrupt was greater then that of a Windows OS being developed after Microsoft went bankrupt. If we were to assume this to be true for sake of arguement that is still only a partial evaluation of the chance of either OS becoming unsupported/developed as you have only looked at one variable of many, including the probability of bankruptcy.

Quote from: Althalus on February 09, 2010, 08:57:54 PM

If that were the case it probably wouldn't compromise it's own security with NSA backdoors.

Who's going to stop them? The 91% of people who use Windows and are free to look at the source and make it do what they want it to?

If Microsoft had complete control over it's own software why would they compromise it's own security?

Canonical spends money to develop Ubuntu and does not profit or even cover costs. Any succesor not motivated by profit would start with less resources and not be able to develop it at the current level.

Ubuntu is not the only distribution of GNU/Linux available, and many others are far less commercial.

You were saying that further development of a software product under a proprietary license is not possible if the owning company goes bankrupt, it is posssible.

Bankruptcy was just an example used to illustrate dependence on a specific company. To pick a more realistic example, Microsoft has the power to force you to either lose support or give them more money by withdrawing support for older versions of Windows. While this is also true for Canonical with Ubuntu, I can still obtain the source code for my current version and hire somebody else to look at it and provide support for any issues I might have, if for some reason I did not wish to upgrade my system. They can even fix it for me, or add new features I might like to have.

With Microsoft all you can do is use what they've given you, and hope that if you're using a system they still support, they'll get around to solving your problem someday. To quote Richard Stallman upon encountering a handheld computer running proprietary software, "it's stopped showing the time, I'll just stroke it a little bit".

You were making a value judgement that the probability of Ubunut being developed after Canonical going bankrupt was greater then that of a Windows OS being developed after Microsoft went bankrupt. If we were to assume this to be true for sake of arguement that is still only a partial evaluation of the chance of either OS becoming unsupported/developed as you have only looked at one variable of many, including the probability of bankruptcy.

Your mistake is thinking that I was trying to evaluate "the chance of either OS becoming unsupported/developed". I was making a point about dependency on a particular company as opposed to having a choice of many sources of support, as I described above.

If Microsoft had complete control over it's own software why would they compromise it's own security?

Please elaborate as to what compromisation of security you are referring to.

Hey guys, What Media Player Do You Use?

Quote from: Althalus on February 10, 2010, 08:37:52 AM

Canonical spends money to develop Ubuntu and does not profit or even cover costs. Any succesor not motivated by profit would start with less resources and not be able to develop it at the current level.

Ubuntu is not the only distribution of GNU/Linux available, and many others are far less commercial.

Well those are different distros to start with, and ubuntu is the only Linux distro that either approaches user-friendlieness for a typical computer user or has notable community support.

Quote from: Althalus on February 10, 2010, 08:37:52 AM

You were saying that further development of a software product under a proprietary license is not possible if the owning company goes bankrupt, it is posssible.

Bankruptcy was just an example used to illustrate dependence on a specific company. To pick a more realistic example, Microsoft has the power to force you to either lose support or give them more money by withdrawing support for older versions of Windows. While this is also true for Canonical with Ubuntu, I can still obtain the source code for my current version and hire somebody else to look at it and provide support for any issues I might have, if for some reason I did not wish to upgrade my system. They can even fix it for me, or add new features I might like to have.

With Microsoft all you can do is use what they've given you, and hope that if you're using a system they still support, they'll get around to solving your problem someday. To quote Richard Stallman upon encountering a handheld computer running proprietary software, "it's stopped showing the time, I'll just stroke it a little bit".

Microsoft only recently stopped selling Windows 3.x, Windows 2000 is still supported. Many banks and buisnesses continue to use decades old OS's with third party support. I'd therfore say that MS withdrawing support isn't that much of an issue, compared to ceasing development of the OS.

Your mistake is thinking that I was trying to evaluate "the chance of either OS becoming unsupported/developed". I was making a point about dependency on a particular company as opposed to having a choice of many sources of support, as I described above.

Again that leaves out many other questions such as the reliability of the various companies and whether they'd have any motivation to work on the software in question. For example would either Red Hat or the Debian Project support it over their own distributions?

Please elaborate as to what compromisation of security you are referring to.

NSA backdoors.

With Microsoft all you can do is use what they've given you, and hope that if you're using a system they still support, they'll get around to solving your problem someday. To quote Richard Stallman upon encountering a handheld computer running proprietary software, "it's stopped showing the time, I'll just stroke it a little bit".

Hmm, it's odd that if my computer, running windows 7, ever needs something it doesn't have, I'll probably be able to find a program I can use that'll do it. If not, I could write one.

Well those are different distros to start with, and ubuntu is the only Linux distro that either approaches user-friendlieness for a typical computer user or has notable community support.

Debian and Fedora have those characteristics in common.

Microsoft only recently stopped selling Windows 3.x, Windows 2000 is still supported. Many banks and buisnesses continue to use decades old OS's with third party support. I'd therfore say that MS withdrawing support isn't that much of an issue, compared to ceasing development of the OS.

This is irrelevant to my point. I'm not saying that they will withdraw support, or that they are withdrawing support, but that they can withdraw support. And you're perfectly okay with them having power over their users because you don't think they'll abuse it?

Again that leaves out many other questions such as the reliability of the various companies and whether they'd have any motivation to work on the software in question. For example would either Red Hat or the Debian Project support it over their own distributions?

GNU/Linux is an operating system, Ubuntu is simply one distribution of it. If support for Ubuntu were withdrawn, I would simply choose another distribution. I'm already considering a switch to Debian because the last time I upgraded Ubuntu, it installed a non-free package without asking me if I wanted it installed.

NSA backdoors.

I just looked that up, and I wasn't aware of it until now, but I'm not sure how you think it supports your point. Free software is fundamentally incapable of hiding anti-features from the user in this way, because anybody can see its source code.

As to their motive for this, it seems that even many top Microsoft programmers are unaware of it due to highly compartmentalised development, according to this article.

Hmm, it's odd that if my computer, running windows 7, ever needs something it doesn't have, I'll probably be able to find a program I can use that'll do it. If not, I could write one.

And Microsoft could stop you running it, if they wanted to. But that's irrelevant; while you can add functionality, you can't remove or change what the operating system itself is doing. You can't, for instance, look into the NT kernel and see exactly how it is doing its job, and modify it to suit your own purposes.

That's what the programmers at Microsoft are paid to do.

And if windows can't stop me from running a pirated copy of their OS, what CAN they stop me from doing?

That's what the programmers at Microsoft are paid to do.

They modify the system to suit their purposes. Their purposes being to do whatever they think most people would like it to do, in an attempt to make money. If your purposes happen to differ from that of the general population, too bad. Moreover, because you can't even see the source code, you don't know if the software has malicious features that send information regarding your activities back to Microsoft or cause certain applications not to run because Microsoft doesn't like them.

And before you say that they wouldn't do that, they have:

One of the claims by Caldera that Microsoft wanted dismissed concerned intentional incompatibilities between Windows and DR-DOS. David Cole and Phil Barrett exchanged emails on 30 September 1991: "It's pretty clear we need to make sure Windows 3.1 only runs on top of MS DOS or an OEM version of it," and "The approach we will take is to detect dr 6 and refuse to load. The error message should be something like 'Invalid device driver interface.'" Microsoft had several methods of detecting and sabotaging the use of DR-DOS with Windows, one incorporated into "Bambi", the code name that Microsoft used for its disk cache utility (SMARTDRV) that detected DR-DOS and refused to load it for Windows 3.1.

And if windows can't stop me from running a pirated copy of their OS, what CAN they stop me from doing?

Modifying it, distributing it legally, and just having control over what your computer is doing.

I can tell what programs are sending what information where, and allow or deny them. I can tell when a program is making changes to another program, and allow and deny that.

I'm not having any issues and my computer does exactly what I want it to.

I can tell what programs are sending what information where, and allow or deny them. I can tell when a program is making changes to another program, and allow and deny that.

You're using the operating system to allow or deny things. What if the operating system itself is designed to relay information back to Microsoft? You couldn't stop it, because it could have been designed to bypass any software firewalls and could do so easily because those firewalls are running on top of the operating system.

Likewise, you can't tell when the operating system itself is preventing you from running certain programs. You're trusting the operating system to protect you from malware, but you can't know whether the operating system is malware if you can't see the source code.

I'm not having any issues and my computer does exactly what I want it to.

You can't know that you're not having any issues, all you can say is that there are no issues of which you are aware. But that is irrelevant; Microsoft has the power to interfere with your computer, even if they aren't actively doing so at the moment. Would you leave your door unlocked at night in a strange neighbourhood just because nobody has robbed you yet?

The only part of the OS that I'm using to allow or deny things is turning my computer on.

I don't use tools provided or made by microsoft to keep my computer safe.

I don't get why you are so worked up over privacy with MS. What can they actually do that woulf affect you in any way?

The only part of the OS that I'm using to allow or deny things is turning my computer on.

When your computer is switched off, you are not using your operating system. Therefore, use of the operating system carries this inherent security risk.

I don't use tools provided or made by microsoft to keep my computer safe.

Whatever security software you do run, it is still running on top of Windows. It has to go through Windows to do anything useful, such as interact with any I/O devices or even the CPU and memory. Microsoft is still in control of your computer's security, albeit indirectly.

I don't get why you are so worked up over privacy with MS. What can they actually do that woulf affect you in any way?

They can prevent Windows users from running programs they don't want them to run, as I have pointed out several times already. Personally, I like having control over which programs I run on my own computer.

I use Songbird! Hell yeah!

It was one of the Applications that I could get from PortableApps.com, so I got it. I like it so far, it does what I want it to.

Can you provide examples of programs they block? Or is this more they could nonsense. Even if they blocked something, say utorrent, it would be with completely understandable reason. To stop piracy of copyrighted work

Can you provide examples of programs they block? Or is this more they could nonsense.

They are capable of blocking programs, the fact that they do not yet do so is irrelevant. As I said before, would you leave your door unlocked at night in a strange neighbourhood just because nobody has robbed you yet?

Even if they blocked something, say utorrent, it would be with completely understandable reason. To stop piracy of copyrighted work

I don't see how that reasoning is understandable at all. Taking away the freedom of the user to run whatever software they want on their own computer is never understandable no matter what the reason given. Also, are you an official spokesperson for Microsoft? You seem terribly well informed on what they would and would not do.

To protect intellectual property it would be understandable. They haven't blocked anything yet so in that sense I am still 'free'

Quote from: Althalus on February 11, 2010, 08:57:26 AM

Well those are different distros to start with, and ubuntu is the only Linux distro that either approaches user-friendlieness for a typical computer user or has notable community support.

Debian and Fedora have those characteristics in common.

They may be the next best regarding those characteristics but they are far behind.

I'm not saying that they will withdraw support, or that they are withdrawing support, but that they can withdraw support. And you're perfectly okay with them having power over their users because you don't think they'll abuse it?

As part of their business model which produces software I use, yes I am fine with them having that 'power', insofar as not providing a service is a power.
As a public company they are legally obligated to maximize their profits and won't terminate support prematurly so I trust them to not abuse that power.

GNU/Linux is an operating system, Ubuntu is simply one distribution of it. If support for Ubuntu were withdrawn, I would simply choose another distribution. I'm already considering a switch to Debian because the last time I upgraded Ubuntu, it installed a non-free package without asking me if I wanted it installed.

Differences between different distros in terms of interoperability are as great as between windows OS's.