gpg: failed to create temporary file '/var/lib/lurker/.#lk0x56ae7100.hantslug.org.uk.27931': Permission denied
gpg: keyblock resource '/var/lib/lurker/pubring.gpg': Permission denied
gpg: Signature made Sun Jan 28 17:40:48 2007 GMT
gpg: using DSA key 7920DB2171B98B64
gpg: Can't check signature: No public key
Andy Random wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jan 2007, Tony Whitmore wrote:
>> I also think that "we" are wrong to consider such people a solid part of
>> the FLOSS movement.
>
> Interesting use of quotes there :)
>
> I don't really consider myself part of the FLOSS movement,
Hence the quotes. :)
> I have nothing
> against FLOSS, I use it everyday and I'm a strong advocate of Linux
> (especially in a server environment), but I've also made a reasonable
> living for the last 20 years from writing non FLOSS software and I'm quite
> willing to pay (a reasonable price) for software which does what I want.
Your advocacy is very strong indeed. Your contributions to the
InfoPoints for example. I wish that others were such effective
advocates, regardless of whether they consider themselves part of the
FLOSS movement :)
>> Aaaaanyway, my point is that users who don't appreciate the Freedom part
>> of FLOSS are, IMHO, likely to move away when something "better" but
>> proprietary comes along.
>
> I think that is true of the vast majority of users, assuming the
> "something better" is within their price range.
Again, I agree. The only people who wouldn't are those for whom the
Freedom aspects are more important than ease-of-use and "bling". I'm
pleased that we are much closer to being able to feature-match Windows
Vista. Some features we've had for a while, others (like Beryl etc.) are
relatively new and a bit buggy still.
> I'm considering an Apple laptop next time I upgrade (probably towards the
> end of this year) mainly because of the form factor/features/price point
> of the hardware rather than anything to do with the software it runs, but
> if I do I'm unlikely to install Linux on it.
"The Mac OS X question" is an interesting one. It uses a lot of open
source software (CUPS, Samba, KHTML, lots of CLI stuff) and is nominally
based on a BSD derivative kernel. Yet all the stuff that people
interface with most is proprietary.
I know a lot of FLOSS developers use Mac OS X as their development
platform (with Linux servers) because they like the text editors and the
GUI as a whole. Personally I quite like the hardware, but I've never
gelled with the GUI. I've not tried that hard, though.
> There are however some people I speak to at Linux events who give me the
> impression they think I will burn in hell for using closed source or
> proprietary software, and quite frankly (though I admit possibly unfairly)
> I tend to dismiss pretty much everything they say from that point on.
>
> If you come across as a fanatic people will shy away from your opinions,
> the key (again IMO) especially in a commercial/corporate environment is to
> make reasoned arguments and stress the benefits not rant about the evils
> of proprietary software.
I agree, but sometimes the benefits of the freedom of FLOSS are
sometimes underplayed in the business environment. The ability to take
the code and have someone else support it provides a great piece of
protection against a supplier going bust. The longevity of data are
important for businesses too and open file formats help in this regard.
I suppose ultimately I don't mind if Linux users don't all "get" how
important the freedoms associated with FLOSS are to me, as long as their
actions don't reduce my ability to continue using it. But I think
downplaying the freedoms is something of a dis-service to the FLOSS
movement as a whole as it is the one thing that sets the software apart
from proprietary offerings.
Cheers,
Tony
