Ubuntu

[skybluestu]

A friend in the UK recently recommended Ubuntu as an alternative to Windows 7, I've never heard of it so wondered if anyone has any experience/opinions of it?

Thanks in advance

[jackiem]

It's a type of Linux.

If you never heard or doesn't know what Linux is then its not for you. It's totally different from Windows so it might take awhile before you get used to it plus those applications you used to use in Windows will not work in Ubuntu unless it has an Ubuntu version.

[Royk]

Hi,

I've only been using it for five days so I can't tell you much about it but as a newbie, I can tell you that it's easy to use. It didn't take long to install and set up the OS providing that you don't have unusual or proprietary components. I didn't have to resort to using commands or messing around with configuration files in setting up the dual view. I use two monitors. It didn't have any problem with the third party SATA controller on my mainboard. It took more or less the same amount of time to learn how to do things in Ubuntu as in Windows 7. I switched from Windows XP so Windows 7 was a fairly unfamiliar territory for me. Oh, and software, Ubuntu has got tons. On my system, the OS, so far, has been very stable. I haven't had any serious problem with it yet. Originally, I thought I was going to try it for a few days before uninstalling it. Well, I like what saw so I decided to leave it there.

Best regards,

Roy

[thaimite]

Ubuntu is a version of Linux and is every bit as easy to use as Windows.

Although it does not use the same programs as windows, it comes with most of the applications you need and as stated above there are tons of others.

Applications install from Ubuntu's own repository and are kept up to date automatically and in the background so applications are as up to date as the operating system and there are no compatibility issues

I have been dual booting Ubuntu XP for several months, but now I am running 90% of the time in Ubuntu only switching to XP to do the few things I cannot do in Ubuntu.

Last night I switched back to XP to do a simple task and it too over 30 minutes of updates and reboots beofre I could even sart.

If you have XP or Windows 7 I would advise a dual boot system until you are familiar with it, but the first step should e to download the live CD which is a full version of Ubuntu that you can boot from a CD without making any changes to your system to see how it works for you. If you are happy then it will also install setting up the dual boot option as well.

While you are testing Ubuntu I suggest you also look at Mint (http://www.linuxmint.com/) which is a cousin to Ubuntu and uses all the same software but is tailored to look more like Windows XP for users transferring from the windows environment.

Give Ubuntu a try. It is free and you have nothing to loose and a lot to gian with free and stable software, no more update or license woes from the Gates of Redmond

[Richb2004v2]

I think it just depends on what you intend using the machine for. If you don't use Windows specific software then it will be fine for you. Even if you do there are many Linux alternatives that are free and easy to install. I use a Garmin running monitor which does not have a Linux alternative. It's specific things like this that keep me tied to XP still to some degree. Ubuntu is fine for the internet, Skype, office tasks, video, music, some fine free games and much more.

The good thing is that you can make what is called a Live CD of Ubuntu. With this you can try is for a while running from the disk without effecting your PC. If you don't like it just remove the disk. If you do then install.

I just realized the previous poster already told you about the Live CD.

[siamect]

It's a type of Linux.

If you never heard or doesn't know what Linux is then its not for you. It's totally different from Windows so it might take awhile before you get used to it plus those applications you used to use in Windows will not work in Ubuntu unless it has an Ubuntu version.

My daughter has been using both Ubuntu and Kubuntu since she was 6... she is 8 now...

[joncl]

It's a type of Linux.

If you never heard or doesn't know what Linux is then its not for you. It's totally different from Windows so it might take awhile before you get used to it plus those applications you used to use in Windows will not work in Ubuntu unless it has an Ubuntu version.

My daughter has been using both Ubuntu and Kubuntu since she was 6... she is 8 now...

same here with my kids .. they love it and would argue that they do not like Windows as they can not do as much (also with Kbunutu for their school work)

[pitanu]

i moved from windows about two years ago, never looked back because ubuntu has everything that 90% of the users need, and does it much better. the pc doesn't get bloated and slow down, it is faster all the time, doesn't crash, and most importantly it's not prone to virus attacks, spyware, etc.

initially of course there was concerns as i do alot of work on websites which required dreamweaver & photoshop. however ubuntu software center allows me to download free programs to try. seamonkey though isn't as good dreamweaver, but i can work with it alright. gimp on the other hand i like much better then photoshop, and my golly it's much faster. at the office everyone uses windows on the lan, i'm the only guy with ubuntu, but i have a good laugh when time is lost because something breaks down, they pull their hair out when they've just lost a whole bunch of emails, etc.

open office can do everything that ms office does, and you can save files as .doc, .xls so you have no problem communicating with other people who haven't converted yet. though i would recommend to purchase a copy of softmaker 2010 instead, its only EUR 69.95

by the way, we have a dual boot pc at home for the kids, windows or ubuntu, the kids pick ubuntu 100% of the time because it's not as stupid as windows

so you need to learn that the menu is on top (though you can put it anywhere you wish), and new names for software, etc. but once you've gone through that stage i would say your productivity will be much higher then on a pc which might stumble, crash and lose all your work with it.

however there is one important thing to keep mind, which one person said earlier, if there are particular software which you MUST use which does not have a linux version, then i'm afraid to say this but you may need to stick to windows.

[nikster]

Do yourself a favor and go with OS X then.

Ubuntu has way too many quirks to use it, at least for me. I do not enjoy "searching the forums for solutions". I want things to work.

I can imagine it's good for kids, they'll like the tinkering aspect just fine. Then again, kids aren't a good yardstick when it comes to usability. They learn very quickly and are probably the easiest computer users you have ever seen. With operating systems it's not "so easy even kids can use it". Rather it should be "so easy even adults can use it".

Actually... I think my main gripe is that it's more or less the opposite of OS X when it comes to usability: It's not well thought out. Things don't make sense. There are 50 ways to do anything vs 1 way that is obvious. When it comes to usability, it's just a huge mess. Choice isn't always a good thing. Like when I get in my car in the morning, I don't want to choose my engine mapping. I want to get in and go.

[raro]

I second the vote for Mint. I use it on a computer at home and it is the first Linux I can get my head around. Moreover it looks much better than the dysentery-brown Ubuntu theme.

[welo]

Haha, I imagine Martin's kids meet nikster's kids and have them to choose from a dual boot screen.

Kids will choose where they know they'll find their favorite game or painting program, and when asked for an opinion they most likely copy what they hear all day from their daddies ('Windows/Linux is stupid').

welo

[pitanu]

<br>Do yourself a favor and go with OS X then. <br><br>Ubuntu has way too many quirks to use it, at least for me. I do not enjoy "searching the forums for solutions". I want things to work.<br><br>I can imagine it's good for kids, they'll like the tinkering aspect just fine. Then again, kids aren't a good yardstick when it comes to usability. They learn very quickly and are probably the easiest computer users you have ever seen. With operating systems it's not "so easy even kids can use it". Rather it should be "so easy even adults can use it".<br><br>Actually... I think my main gripe is that it's more or less the opposite of OS X when it comes to usability: It's not well thought out. Things don't make sense. There are 50 ways to do anything vs 1 way that is obvious. When it comes to usability, it's just a huge mess. Choice isn't always a good thing. Like when I get in my car in the morning, I don't want to choose my engine mapping. I want to get in and go.<br>

<br><br><br>quite untrue, ubuntu is robust & well thought out. i've used it over 2 years and never had a problem.  we moved our home business from windows to linux overnight, the following morning my wife came downstairs, starts up the pc to find ubuntu! she had no problem with the changeover, which means you don't have to be einstein to figure it out.  i would say kids have less patience, therefore they prefer things that work. <br><br>os x i have played with, nice but not for everyone, keep in mind the latest version is not without problems, and to think you spend so much for a mac but are restricted to software, is it really worth the investment?  <br><br>ubuntu is for humanity, windows is for gamers, mac is for someone who just wants to be different <br><br>

[astral]

Moved to the Linux section where Ubuntu is fully understood.

[siamect]

Most of the Mac users I know are using Mac because it is more reliable than Windows.

But Apple and MS simply doesn't want to tell you how things work. They invent silly words like HomeGroups and stuff like that. It only complicates things for no reason at all. they claim that it would make it easy to share volumes. I have never had any problems with shared volumed on WinXP. But Win7. I just want the thing see a share that is already there and that was visible from an old winXP I had long time ago. Ubuntu, Kubuntu and Gentoo can see this windows share without problems. No you need to create a HomeGroup first and then ... sorry you cannot do that because you only have Win7 Starter. Possibly there are ways around this but if you just do it the win7 there is a problem.

It turns out that it is easier to use winscp and ssh than to use this stupid homegroup stuff... and on the same deal you get encryption and passwordless authentication with RSA keys. Besides winscp has a gui that is much better than windows explorer.

Another example I have seen in that direction is a friend of mine who had some problems with shared volumes ( Again! ) between Mac and Windows. I mean shared volumes!.... it is not supposed to be a problem at all on any system.

He has support contract both with MS and Apple and he called them both and of course the people he spoke to have less knowledge than what he has. After a few hours of phone calls and yes they escalated the issue and called him from abroad so they wanted to help him but they couldn't. Not even the experts from MS and Apple could solve this. He was told to reinstall everything and silly stuff like this. Days were spent on this!

He found the solution in a blog later on written by someone who had spent time trying and by coincidence found a solution.... so you can see that the EULA that people are forced to sign, which tell you that you are not supposed to try to find out how a program works is very effective even among those who are supposed to have the best knowledge in the support organizations of Apple and MS.

The next thing is software. If you are using Windows or Mac you have a very limited range of software that you can run. Most people buy MS Office and Photoshop elements and some application that are related to their field of activity and after that the budget is gone. I know many people just laughs at me for writing this, because you can get all that software from pantip, but sorry, that is illegal and we should not do that! Laugh again... I don't mind...

The problem is that that limits the computer from being a flexible tool that you can use for a number of things to a box that does a few things and nothing more. How often do you hear people say ... "I just use it for emails and web browsing...." Bingo! That is a clear indication that something is really wrong.

"I had Photoshop on my old computer but not on the new one." This goes on and on.

You find that you need to do a certain thing just once or twice. Is it worth to buy a specific software for that? No of course not! You do it manually instead and you loose time and the quality sucks.

In the industry this goes to the extremes and very often you have to spend more time trying to find out what licenses that you need to buy than what it takes to actually create the program itself. Take a look at http://beckhoff.com/...m?id=3479960676 and scroll down. And some of the software in the listing is buggy like hel_l.

And 5 years later when the dam thing need to be reinstalled you can't because the software vendor is not selling that software any longer but have an updated version that of course is not compatible the application. And you need a new license because you have a new computer... This stuff stops production and is a serious problem... Most people pretend that this problem does not exist and refer to the production stop as "not expected" or" we cannot cover up for everything" ...but that talk is just silly. Use free software and you have solved those problems.

If I need any program in my GNU/Linux box I just install it! Minutes later I can do whatever is need to do. It's free software! It enables me to work a lot more efficient because I can use tools that would not be available fro me in a non free system. No crappy "freeware" or crippled "trial versions" or shareware that end up being really expensive when you want to use it.

We just had another example... A vision system from Euresys on WinXP that checks the orientation of some small parts used in watch movements. Turns out we had problems with the recognition and we needed to process the picture before we run the recognition. But the license didn't cover this library for processing so the question was if we should buy a license for the library it or not. We got a trial version valid for 7 days. During these 7 days we are supposed to learn how it works, write a program, integrate it into the application and test it under real production and then analyze the result of the production and make a decision. And after 7 days the license expires and stops the production and so we have to revert to the original version before that happens... we dumped the trial version and spent the money on a better light system instead. we also need to buy one more license for the spare computer...

Third example...A machine with some proprietary Siemens software running on WinXP. I set the time (German timezone to Bangkok timezone) The machine has been running for almost 10 years with incorrect timezone. Now I have to have correct timezone because I need to track some parameters because of higher demands of transparency in production. What happens? 30 minutes later it starts to show error telling us we are running a demo version and shuts down production. During the time after I set the timezone we had done some significant change in the system so it was not clear that it was the time setting that caused the problem. I just guessed and it was right but that was just pure luck...

The only way of dealing with this kind of stuff is to use free software.

Martin

[welo]

Gosh, I thought *I* have problem writing posts that are too long

The post seems a bit therapeutic to me, looks like you had quite some stress with non-free software at work

I'm not a friend of copyright-ing everything or of strict and unflexible user-licenses, but IMHO there is nothing wrong with charging money for a good piece of software. Not least because I'm software engineer myself and need to make a living.

You further assume that there is a piece of free software for every problem or domain there is - and without detailed analysis I dare say there is not!

Why people expect everything to be freely available when it comes to software? Just because software is only bits and bytes doesn't mean there is no production process and resources spent/invested...

I'm actually an advocate of dual-license schemes for private/business use or restricted freeware software (with expert or professional features only available in the paid version). Because I agree that it's hardly worth spending big $$$ for software that you need only once or twice.

Of course limits and restrictions have to be reasonable, and marketing has to be honest about the differences between versions.

Restricted licenses, error-prone copy-protection and bad-quality software are not equivalent to paid (commercial) software products. There are many commercial products available that are high-quality, provide good customer support, and offer easy ways of paying/purchasing without cumbersome license terms.

This is not an anti free software post, this is merely an anti-anti-commercial-software post.

So nothing wrong with going with Ubuntu and enjoying the merits of free software.

peace,

welo

[thaimite]

I must say I agree with Welo's post. I do not mind paying for any software I use, but will admit to frequently using the Plantip "try before you buy scheme", in the past, often regretting the waste of 2USD and very glad I did not buy the full product when the purchased item does not work as advertised

Through Plantip I have found some really good programs that I went out and bought full license for. This is not to say I am pro pirate software (I can proudly boast 100% licensed software on my machine) I just think there is a place for fully functioning trial versions, which I can get there easily , Fortunately these are now more available on a legitimate basis from the net.

Where I have a problem is with products that I am almost forced to buy because of they are almost deemed the de-fact standard, and then to make matters worse they then keep changing file formats forcing you to upgrade to be able to read the latest file versions. MS Office is a prime example. Word 97 does all I need, but with the change in file formats and updates you are almost forced to upgrade at extortionate prices. It is not even possible to buy old versions legally, at least not that I have found.

With the rise of Linux, and open source software such as Open Office and Softoffice hopefully most of that is in the past and we can all start to make proper use of our computers, and all software can compete on a level playing field

However like Martin I too often have to use specialist software that is only available in Windows, and for that reason alone I will keep my dual boot windows XP (or use XP on a virtual machine).

The one thing I miss is the ability to port Excel VBA code to SoftOffice or open office. I have many spreadhseets which make extensive use of VBA and I really do not want to have to sit down and recode everything. Maybe one of the knowledgeable folk here can point me to a solution for that.

However for me Windows 7 was the last straw, and I am now a confirmed Ubuntu Gee, and more and more of my friends are also giving Linux a trial

[siamect]

Welo Please!

Don't put word in my mouth...

I'm not against charging money for software.

I don't assume that there is a free software for all problems.

I don't assume there is no cost for producing software

My post is not anti-commercial. I support free competition and a free market. I'm against monopolies and socialism.

Free software is not equal to "gratis", it is about freedom.

Free software is not noncommercial.

I suggest you read FSF's definition of free software.

I'm in no need of a therapist and my situation at work is not stressful at all...

Martin

[welo]

Martin,

sorry, my post was probably too provocative - whereas I intended to provoke a little, I obviously stepped over a line - sorry for that!

My remark about the 'therapeutic' aspect was not meant to discredit you or your post (not at all!), but rather as a mild joke about the troubles at work that you had described in your post - because I can honestly say that these kind of experiences are a constant source of frustration for myself - I'm not tolerant when it comes to badly programmed software, and even more badly programmed copyright protection techniques (and the time zone problem obviously was of that kind).

I know what free software means in terms of the Free Software Foundation. But let's face the facts, in the real world most of the free software is NOT commercial software.

Free software, software libre or libre software is software that can be used, studied, and modified without restriction, and which can be copied and redistributed in modified or unmodified form either without restriction, or with minimal restrictions only to ensure that further recipients can also do these things and that manufacturers of consumer-facing hardware allow user modifications to their hardware. Free software is generally available without charge, but can have a fee.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software

There are business models available for free software, one is to provide professional support while the software itself is free (as in free of charge).

This model works for software aimed at corporate businesses. It usually doesn't work for consumer oriented software - at least that is my experience.

So do I like free (as in freedom) software, yes, do I see some advantages of free software, yes!

But my question is:

1. Are my observations about business models correct?

2. And if so, why do only view companies offer free (as in freedom) commercial (as in purchase) software.

peace,

welo

[siamect]

Martin,

sorry, my post was probably too provocative - whereas I intended to provoke a little, I obviously stepped over a line - sorry for that!

My remark about the 'therapeutic' aspect was not meant to discredit you or your post (not at all!), but rather as a mild joke about the troubles at work that you had described in your post - because I can honestly say that these kind of experiences are a constant source of frustration for myself - I'm not tolerant when it comes to badly programmed software, and even more badly programmed copyright protection techniques (and the time zone problem obviously was of that kind).

---------

There are business models available for free software, one is to provide professional support while the software itself is free (as in free of charge).

This model works for software aimed at corporate businesses. It usually doesn't work for consumer oriented software - at least that is my experience.

So do I like free (as in freedom) software, yes, do I see some advantages of free software, yes!

But my question is:

1. Are my observations about business models correct?

2. And if so, why do only view companies offer free (as in freedom) commercial (as in purchase) software.

peace,

welo

Ok I understand, apology is accepted, no problems.

1. You are right about business models, but replace the "free of charge" with "free as in freedom" and you can see that companies can charge for software if the market is willing to pay.

These business models are aiming to sell additional services to the category of users who are using free software. Companies provide the same services for proprietary software users, either as addition to selling licenses or without involving themselves in selling licenses at all.

These companies simply provide support services, it has nothing to do with the type of licenses of the software that they provide the support for.

It is, however common that these companies make contributions to free software projects based on the needs they see that their customers have and in order to reduce the amount of hours they need to spend, supporting their customers. It is nothing non-commercial about this. It is just to minimize the cost of fulfilling the contract they have signed with the customers. It is relatively uncommon that a company in this category is allowed to contribute to to the proprietary software projects that they are selling licenses for.

Free software, according to the FSF definition, is never, ever forbidden from being used in commercial applications as long as they do not violate the license, which, if the license is copyleft, give the users the same rights if they receive a modified version as they had with the original version.

95% of the programmers in the world are employed by companies that do not sell software at all. These 95% are producing software that is giving the receiver the 4 essential freedoms, although most of them never use freedom to distribute outside the companies. Some of them do distribute software to support the free software projects.

2. Price tags of commercial products (including free software) are based on the demand and availability. Price of non-commercial products are based on artificial price settings. As the availability is basically limitless when it comes to free software, the price tag naturally falls to something very close to what the distribution cost is.

Production cost has nothing to do with market price. Software, as all products, is paid by the users based on what they want to use, it creates a demand but the availability is huge as the distribution is very efficient and the contributions to free software projects are large. Software is not produced to feed programmers and to keep the price tag up with artificial means is wrong. To do that is in my opinion non-commercial.

Proprietary software vendors are limiting the availability of their programs so that availability stays lower than the demand. That is the mechanism that cranks up the price. The demand of proprietary software is maintained on a high level using a variety of methods. Some of these methods are OK, some are questionable from a ethical point of view and some are just plain illegal.

Now the question is: Why do you pay 100 dollar for Win7...

Martin

[thaimite]

Now the question is: Why do you pay 100 dollar for Win7...

I think the answer to that question is I won't which is why I am here on the Ubuntu forum,

Othyerwise I agree with what was stated above, it is all about freedom of choice and the ability to choose which application I use for which purpose and how much I want to pay and thus not get stuck in the "you must upgrade trap"

In my experience more and more people are seeing that you are now getting less and less each timeMS releases a new veriosn and there is less reason to follow the crowd. Personally I think Windows 7 was the best thing that ever happened to Ubuntu and Linux

[siamect]

Personally I think Windows 7 was the best thing that ever happened to Ubuntu and Linux

I really love that one!

[welo]

You are right about business models, but replace the "free of charge" with "free as in freedom" and you can see that companies can charge for software if the market is willing to pay.

[...]

Free software, according to the FSF definition, is never, ever forbidden from being used in commercial applications as long as they do not violate the license, which, if the license is copyleft, give the users the same rights if they receive a modified version as they had with the original version.

I know we could discuss this on a theoretical basis, but to be honest I am lazy and I'll take the shortcut, repeating my question from my previous post:

Why are there so view commercial free-software products, that is free software (as in freedom), I mean companies that 'sell' the actual product and not services around it? I know this business model works for service-intensive software, but I don't see it working for end-user oriented software products.

Of course software is not created with the goal to feed software programmers, but the process of creating software does require fed programmers

And while many Open Source software projects (sorry to inter-mingle words here, but I dare say this is the most common representation of 'free software', please correct me if I'm wrong) are supported by companies driven by business interests, this is not that common for end-user software - these are often software developers that earn their money as employee of a software company that is producing non-free software.

welo

[siamect]

Why are there so view commercial free-software products, that is free software (as in freedom), I mean companies that 'sell' the actual product and not services around it? I know this business model works for service-intensive software, but I don't see it working for end-user oriented software products.

Of course software is not created with the goal to feed software programmers, but the process of creating software does require fed programmers

And while many Open Source software projects (sorry to inter-mingle words here, but I dare say this is the most common representation of 'free software', please correct me if I'm wrong) are supported by companies driven by business interests, this is not that common for end-user software - these are often software developers that earn their money as employee of a software company that is producing non-free software.

welo

Ok we take it from the beginning... Free software is commercial, the supply is larger than the demand and therefore the price goes down to basically zero. This is a natural process and free copyleft licenses are used to defend the freedom of the markets against negative artificial restrictions such as copyright restrictions.

Non-free software producers on the other hand, are using artificial methods to restrict the supply and keeping it lower than the demand. This is done by using copyright restrictions, unfair end users license agreements and by hiding the sources from the users. This is unfair, the users have the right to know what the programs are doing before they use or buy them. You have the right to know what your win7 is doing but MS denied you that right and therefore you should not use their software.

The problem is that most people think that these artificial methods of keeping the price up is free competition in a free market economy... It's not!

Most people don't have much knowledge of computers and software. Computers are complicated and software is even worse and therefore the dirty business goes on, you personal integrity goes up in smoke and you are no longer in control of your computer, your life nor your economy. (think a little before you say I'm wrong)

You first question is based on a misunderstanding of what commercial products are... and if rephrase it like "Why are there so few companies distributing free software" then it becomes irrelevant because there are tons of free software distributed by a large number of companies, private persons and other organizations for various reasons.

The market price is so low that it is better to give the software away to anyone who is interested.

There is no shortage of free software and there is no shortage of programmers who wants to contribute and very few of them are starving and most of those who do starve are employed by non-free software producers.

Some of them are paid high salaries for what they are doing and some are doing it without pay for the same reason as we are answering peoples questions here (well we should at least...).

These programmers are often programming because they love it. If they took away the copyright restrictions of music... do you think there would be less music written or played? Of course not... artists do not stop painting because they cannot make a living out of it... I'm not paid to be a pain in the butt either...

It is wrong to assume that the majority of free software is produced by people who are employed by companies selling non-free software. 95% of all programmers in the world are employed by companies that are not selling software at all. You used the word "often". Maybe 10% out if the 5% that work for non-free software companies are are involved in free software projects... that makes 1 in 200... not that often in my eyes. Most non-free software companies have quite tough restrictions on what people can do in their free time too.

Still there is enough free software to make non-free software obsolete in most cases. I really have a hard time coming up with an application where there are no good free alternatives... Maybe you can?

but I don't see it working for end-user oriented software products.

The fact that you don't see it working doesn't mean it doesn't work... Obviously it does work. There are lots of free end user software products and I'm using gigabytes of it right now......

Martin

[welo]

but I don't see it working for end-user oriented software products.

The fact that you don't see it working doesn't mean it doesn't work... Obviously it does work. There are lots of free end user software products and I'm using gigabytes of it right now......

Now you are putting words into my mouth. I never claimed that there is a lack of end-user oriented 'free software', I was talking about companies *selling* free software products. Because in a previous post you stated that one 'can see that companies can charge for [free] software if the market is willing to pay' (maybe implying that the market is not?).

But of course - as you just pointed out - in terms of a software market without restricting licenses 'the supply is larger than the demand and therefore the price goes down to basically zero'. You explain this as a 'natural process': 'as the availability is basically limitless when it comes to free software, the price tag naturally falls to something very close to what the distribution cost is.'

However, the 'distribution' costs don't equal the 'production' costs of software. Even though the costs for *re*-producing software is low, the production costs usually involve a fair amount of human resources aka man-power. One can find this discrepancy between production costs per unit and production costs over the whole product life-cycle (including research and development) in many other areas as well, e.g. the pharmaceutical industry, but also in any other technical industry (e.g. automotive industry).

So this is no news, but the corner-stone of the discussion around intellectual copyright and technical patents: How do businesses protect their investment into research and development (intellectual property) without enslaving users and the 'market' as a whole.

I do share concerns about software licenses that burden and restrict the user up to an unacceptable degree.

I do oppose the patentability of software in general as practiced in the US (for instance) - I'm sure you know that the patentability of software in Europe is very limited (even though there is lobbying done to change this)

I do like the concept of Open Source and appreciate its benefits.

I do appreciate and respect the work of the FSF to raise the awareness and educate users.

I do like high-quality software, no matter if it is 'free software' or not.

I am NOT defending Microsoft and other software companies that impose ridiculous software license schemes and abuse their monopoly with dubious methods.

However, I don't agree that 'The only way of dealing with this kind of stuff is to use free software'. No need to tear down the whole house just because the windows are broke

welo

[thaimite]

There is a place for both paid and free (open source) software.

As a user rather than a developer (I do write software for fun and specialist applications, but not the sort of stuff that is commercial) I would normally expect the paid software to be better quality, better supported and more inovative than open source or shareware/ freeware. but saly that is often not the case.

Therefore I must ask myself as a user what is the advantage in paying for expensive commercial products?

Another area where I would expect large commercial software companies to set the lead is in standards, but again people like Microsoft abuse this by deliberately creating their own 'standards', a good example is ODF which is not fully supported by their flagship product.

I have watched MS abuse its position and use every trick in the book to discredit the opposition since the days of OS2 (yes I was the one that used it:rolleyes:)

This was a good product albeit with poor hardware support, but which had premeptive multitasking somthing MS did not introduce in to its desktop products until XP, In many respects OS2 was years ahead of Windows 3.1 and even Windows 95, and MS set out to kill using all sorts of devious tactics which this is not the place to detail, and is in danger of setting me off on an anti MS rant.

So my point ism while we need paid software to fund the industry I am finding it hard to justify using their products on a personal level. When I look at my installed programs in XP (all legaly purchased) and the functionality I have in Linux with 100% free software I can no longer justify the cost and would much rather use the finds to support open source foundations. One further Pro Ubuntu point is that most of my regular outlay for windows software was for anti-malware programs which I preferred to use the paid version and support the developers. These programs with all their attendant hassles of upgrades and scheduled scans, are now a thing fo the past.

I think my point of the above rant is that for commercial software to survive, and we as users need it to survive, is that it must offer something that is not available from open source which as I said above, could be cutting edge, reliability or support for its users and open standards, all of which are lacking

[siamect]

Now you are putting words into my mouth.

------------------

How do businesses protect their investment into research and development (intellectual property) without enslaving users and the 'market' as a whole.

------------------

However, I don't agree that 'The only way of dealing with this kind of stuff is to use free software'. No need to tear down the whole house just because the windows are broke

welo

Sorry about putting words in your mouth, I'll be more careful next time.

------------------------

Enslaving users and the 'market' is unethical and makes a far more important point than any protection of "intellectual property".

"Intellectual property" consist of a wide range of completely unrelated things such as unfair restrictions via licenses and patents, that really should not be possible to invest in or protect at all, and other things such as brand names and trademarks that of course should be possible to protect and invest in.

To mix these items into the same category is not motivated, only confusing.

-----------------------

Let me clarify by rephrasing:

'The only way of dealing with stoppage in the production caused by problems with non-free software, is to use free software'.

My examples was not only about MS-Windows, it was also about Siemens, Euresys, Beckhoff, Selectron, Keyence etc

Martin

[welo]

So this is [...] the corner-stone of the discussion around intellectual copyright and technical patents: How do businesses protect their investment into research and development (intellectual property) without enslaving users and the 'market' as a whole.

Enslaving users and the 'market' is unethical and makes a far more important point than any protection of "intellectual property".

"Intellectual property" consist of a wide range of completely unrelated things such as unfair restrictions via licenses and patents, that really should not be possible to invest in or protect at all, and other things such as brand names and trademarks that of course should be possible to protect and invest in.

To mix these items into the same category is not motivated, only confusing.

And yet again did you misunderstand me, I attribute this to my mediocre English language skills. I re-added the context to my original post.

My question was not meant rhetorical, implying that 'enslaving users' is the only way of protecting investment into research and development, I rather stated the problem/question that has to be solved: 'How do businesses protect their investment into research and development (intellectual property) without enslaving users and the 'market' as a whole.'

And...

Intellectual property (IP) is a term referring to a number of distinct types of creations of the mind for which property rights are recognised--and the corresponding fields of law. Under intellectual property law, owners are granted certain exclusive rights to a variety of intangible assets, such as musical, literary, and artistic works; discoveries and inventions; and words, phrases, symbols, and designs. Common types of intellectual property include copyrights, trademarks, patents, industrial design rights and trade secrets in some jurisdictions.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property

Out of these 5 types let's scratch 'trademarks', that leaves us with copyrights, patents, industrial-design rights and trade secrets.

The basic idea is similar with all of them, namely to allow protecting a 'creation of the mind' and its commercial exploitation, in order to encourage and support research and innovation.

These exclusive rights allow owners of intellectual property to benefit from the property they have created, providing a financial incentive for the creation of and investment in intellectual property, and, in case of patents, pay associated research and development costs.

Which of the mentioned types of intellectual property do you oppose? And are your concerns only related to software or general?

I do understand that people are dissatisfied with some of the consequences of intellectual property rights.

I do see the negative consequences of the industry/individual companies eagerly trying to overpower the user/consumer for their own benefit.

However, I personally don't have a problem with moderately crafted intellectual property laws. I assume that there are solutions to the problems that you suffer from other than the defacto abolishment of intellectual property rights by enforcing the right to redistribute to the consumer.

Examples:

The state already provides a framework for the market that includes consumer protection laws in order to protect consumers from being overpowered by the industry.

Copyright law is not absolute, for example can I quote from a book or an article, or use texts for educational purposes.

General software patents are granted and enforced in the United States, but very limited in Europe.

welo

[siamect]

I rather stated the problem/question that has to be solved.

I also think this is a problem and I think that the right way to "solve" the problem is by teaching people how to avoid using products that are enslaving them...

Which of the mentioned types of intellectual property do you oppose? And are your concerns only related to software or general?

I oppose the word "intellectual property" because it is a nonsense word... the listing from wikipedia contains stuff that are completely unrelated...

My concerns are in general but my knowledge is software and electronics.

I think patents in general are bad. I have seen more misery coming out from patents for the patent holder than success.

I think copyrights should be short, like couple of years, when it comes to literature and music, motion pictures, photographs and music.

Copyright is the foundation of the free software licenses. Other licenses are based on contracts and copyrights but free licenses are based solely on copyrights.

Software is special product. Few other products can have hidden functionality to the same degree and few other products are so impossible to modify for the user. Without the source code we don't know what our computers are doing.

Few other products are so involved in the information flow of our daily life and few other products can give an evil person/organization so much power over people.

It is up to the user to make the choice and that requires knowledge and awareness.

Copyright based free licenses is to my knowledge the only way we can to some extent make software open to public review. Therefore I think we shall keep software copyrights forever. I hesitate a little because copyright restriction work both ways. It keeps the proprietary software hidden for us forever too and we will never know what use.

I do understand that people are dissatisfied with some of the consequences of intellectual property rights.

I do see the negative consequences of the industry/individual companies eagerly trying to overpower the user/consumer for their own benefit.

So do I...

However, I personally don't have a problem with moderately crafted intellectual property laws. I assume that there are solutions to the problems that you suffer from other than the defacto abolishment of intellectual property rights by enforcing the right to redistribute to the consumer.

A free license is something that the copyright holder of a piece of software can use if he wants to. No one can force anyone to use GPL or any other free license.

I have never argued that we shall enforce anything... or abolish intellectual property rights. Free licenses does not do that.

The problems that we all suffer from is that we deal with a mistake in choosing software. Either it is because we didn't understand it or we were forced to or someone else made the mistake and we have to deal with it.

I would also like to know if you have a solution to the problems mentioned. It would be really valuable and would save some serious cash for the company I work for.

I know that some people reading this are programmers and are creating web based applications. The customer is often a company selling software as a service. I would like to encourage you to use the GNU Affero General Public License. There are many server applications using software under GPL and the user still don't know what these applications are doing. Facebook is a typical example...

GNU Affero General Public License is requiring that the sources of the server application is open to the public too.

http://www.gnu.org/l...affero-gpl.html

Martin

[kevinsan]

Using Ubuntu for two or three years. Follow the directions to burn the iso, Get a new hardrive and load her up. There is also an easy to use Windows installer to check out how it works. If you don't like it just unistall like any other Win program. Now my only Windows machine is for Photoshop and 3DS. Otherwise its all Ubuntu for our office staff. Free with quality. No BSA BS in the workplace!

[welo]

@Martin

It is correct that the GPL does not enforce anything on the end-user, but gives him a wide-range of 'rights' to use the software. I want to make this clear because I'm not interested in spreading FUD.

The GPL is a software license that grants extensive rights, and imposes one important 'restriction' which only affects software developers (professional or not) that produce derivative work based on the GPL'ed software. 'Derivative work' means that I take the software - which can be a complete application with UI for instance but also a toolkit, framework or so-called software library - and modify it, or just use it to write my own piece of software 'linked' to the GPL'ed code.

If I want to redistribute this created work, I have to make it available under the terms of the GPL as well.

This basically means that I cannot 'sell' the derivative work I've created as a software product (due to market dynamics as we worked out in the previous posts). While this makes perfect sense in order to protect people's work from being commercially exploited, and moreover to spread the idea of 'free software', the implications are far-reaching.

The 'problem' is the definition of 'derivative work' and 'linking' when it comes to software development. When I last checked the discussion on this question were still ongoing, and the opinions differed. It might not appear to the average user that 'linking' is a very fuzzy term.

There is a reason why one of the most successful Open Source projects, the Webserver Apache, is not released under the GPL but under the 'Apache License', which is also a Free Software license but allows using the source code for both the development of proprietary as well as free and Open Source software. This applies of course also to websites and web applications that run on top of Apache.

While you (Martin) obviously find it desirable to push companies to provide access to the software source code in order to be able to analyze the software, this is not desirable for many companies for various reasons, mostly commercial - to protect their investment (maybe months of research) and protect their advantage on the market which was most likely gained because of innovative ideas or just years of experience in the field. The very same reason why e.g. food companies don't publish information about their recipes and production process together with their sold product.

So if the Apache Server had been released under the GPL or any other copyleft license (copyleft = "requiring that the same rights be preserved in modified versions of the work", wikipedia), it most likely would not have been that successful. Or Facebook would most likely not have used Apache as their platform (do they actually use Apache?).

I'm no expert on this matter, and I don't claim to have a solution to the problem. However, my 'feeling' is that just because there are black sheep in the software industry that abuse their monopoly, and because there is a general bad practice of restrictive software license terms, it is not fair to identify commercial and proprietary software as the culprit.

My ideas:

• Keep educating users and lobbying for less restrictive software license terms - but no need to condemn and demonize proprietary software
  
• Improve laws to forbid unfair license terms - what we know as 'free market' is actually regulated by the state, so why consumer protection laws should not be able to aid here?
  
• As a company purchasing software: negotiate better license terms, e.g. access to source code for security audits, terms of use when product is discontinued, etc
  

welo