Why Free Software Is More Important Now Than Ever

[Slurhn]

A 2-3 page read about the importance of "libre" software. The article explains it pretty nicely.

http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/09/why-free-software-is-more-important-now-than-ever-before/

 

I think the author went slightly overboard with persuasion to "abandon ship" for anyone using non-open source programs.

It still is a good read if you are unfamiliar with diffrent ways to distribute software.

It's also worth mentioning software licences, which the article alludes to, but never acutally mentions them.

 

I think it's hard, if not impossible to create fully "libre" software on par with the usability of AutoCAD or Photoshop, and we will not move to free, open-source software. It would nice though if companies like AutoDesk would give full access to the source code if you bought their program and allow you to distribute it with a royalty fee.

[911^NEmeSis]

Read some of it, seems like a good read. Nice find mate!

[UselessBread]

I think the author went slightly overboard with persuasion to "abandon ship" for anyone using non-open source programs.

 

That article was written by Richard Stallman, what do you expect?

Also sometimes I find free software to be vastly superior to non-free options. In my opinion LaTeX is vastly superior to word for what I do with it.

[MzCatieB]

My game studio only uses freeware.

UDK, Blender, GIMP, AutoDesk Sketchbook ext, ext, ext. actually the only thing we buy is Windows :3 and that's for software support.

[Beskamir]

Too bad the most school boards and free software (open source specifically) are like a vampire and a torch In design we had to use AutoCAD (I learned almost nothing, and completely nothing valuable since we just learned how to draw 2D stuff in AutoCAD even though I think I could do the EXACT same thing in GIMP or Photoshop) so for whatever reason instead of learning the 3D aspect of AutoCAD we learned how to use sketchup. The logic, it's free. So I pointed out how Blender is far superior but nobody cared...

[GoodBytes]

I like those developers that says open source is the way to go, forgetting that they need to bring food on the table.

[silencerbob]

MediaPortal!

Gogogo!

[Matsy]

I love free software  

[beebskadoo]

Free software is great and all but Paid software is generally better. Richard Stallman is a visionary but he lives in his own world.

[beebskadoo]

I use a lot of free software, I use Winamp, Gimp, VLC, Freemake, and handbrake. But some things are just better to buy, like Pavtube Bluray ripper/media converter, Sony Vegas, DxTory, Fraps, Photoshop. Those things work better than free programs, and are generally more in depth.

[Slurhn]

That article was written by Richard Stallman, what do you expect?

Also sometimes I find free software to be vastly superior to non-free options. In my opinion LaTeX is vastly superior to word for what I do with it.

 

I agree with LaTeX being superior, although I must say I have no idea who Richard Stallman is.

Now reading his site...

 

 

In design we had to use AutoCAD (I learned almost nothing, and completely nothing valuable since we just learned how to draw 2D stuff in AutoCAD even though I think I could do the EXACT same thing in GIMP or Photoshop) so for whatever reason instead of learning the 3D aspect of AutoCAD we learned how to use sketchup. The logic, it's free. So I pointed out how Blender is far superior but nobody cared...

 

I understand your pain. I took a design class and we used AutoCAD 98 <_<.

To learn 3d, you either learn by yourself, or take a class in 3D/Maya design specifically.

[rashdanml]

I like those developers that says open source is the way to go, forgetting that they need to bring food on the table.

Depends how you look at it to be honest.

 

1) If a company uses open-source software, they've cut out the license cost of proprietary software - allowing that money to be used for increased benefits to its employees. 

2) If a company supports and develops open-source software, obviously they don't make money on the software itself. However, they can supplement the development cost (salaries of employees, primarily) through other means. Donations from users of open-source software, for instance. Google and Android is one example. While Google's services are largely free (not all open-source, but still free), they have paid services for customers who require it. 

3) If an individual creates a software and releases it for free, he/she receives nothing, which theoretically does mean no food on the table. Practically, the cost of development is funded through other means (through a full-time job or any other option). 

 

Open-source doesn't mean the developers are starving. If they were, the FSF, Linux foundation, and many other organizations formed to maintain free and open source software won't exist. 

[JLCitadel]

I like those developers that says open source is the way to go, forgetting that they need to bring food on the table.

 

That has nothing to do with it. If you become a software dev you know the risks of it.

[GoodBytes]

I agree with LaTeX being superior, although I must say I have no idea who Richard Stallman is.

Now reading his site...

LaTeX is complete garbage mess. Simple things are sooo overly complicated, and broken.

The open source text editors are buggy, unpolished, lack of features, and doesn't even have color coding.

Yes I used LaTeX, I was forced to use it... I came in with an open mind, as it was talked a lot, now I say it should die.

There is nothing wrong with OpenOffice, LibreOffice, or Word. Use that, make a PDF out of it, Done. You'll be done in a fraction of the time compared to LaTeX

 

 

Depends how you look at it to be honest.

 

1) If a company uses open-source software, they've cut out the license cost of proprietary software - allowing that money to be used for increased benefits to its employees. 

2) If a company supports and develops open-source software, obviously they don't make money on the software itself. However, they can supplement the development cost (salaries of employees, primarily) through other means. Donations from users of open-source software, for instance. Google and Android is one example. While Google's services are largely free (not all open-source, but still free), they have paid services for customers who require it. 

3) If an individual creates a software and releases it for free, he/she receives nothing, which theoretically does mean no food on the table. Practically, the cost of development is funded through other means (through a full-time job or any other option). 

 

Open-source doesn't mean the developers are starving. If they were, the FSF, Linux foundation, and many other organizations formed to maintain free and open source software won't exist. 

 

No. Companies will just cash in more profits. And if developers makes no money, that means, no one will go in that difficult field, and then you'll have no software.

 

That has nothing to do with it. If you become a software dev you know the risks of it.

Huh?  What are you talking about?

Open Source software is not a treat to software developers... it's software developers that works on it.

[rashdanml]

No. Companies will just cash in more profits. And if developers makes no money, that means, no one will go in that difficult field, and then you'll have no software.

You're missing the point.

 

"Companies" supporting (either by developing or using) open-source software ARE making money. Otherwise, they won't be in business any more. Open-source software and food on the table aren't directly correlated. 

 

Another example: RedHat Enterprise Linux. The distribution they release is 100% free (unless they bundle in proprietary software). The reason RHEL isn't free is due to the support customers get from the developers. RHEL has spawned many completely free and open-source, community-supported distributions, yet RHEL is still in business. 

[James_AJ]

Wow, great read!

[GoodBytes]

You're missing the point.

 

"Companies" supporting (either by developing or using) open-source software ARE making money. Otherwise, they won't be in business any more. Open-source software and food on the table aren't directly correlated. 

 

Another example: RedHat Enterprise Linux. The distribution they release is 100% free (unless they bundle in proprietary software). The reason RHEL isn't free is due to the support customers get from the developers. RHEL has spawned many completely free and open-source, community-supported distributions, yet RHEL is still in business. 

Oh I agree with this. Open Source software is great, for a multitude of reasons.

But the dream mentality to say that all software should be open source, that is flawed, and that's my point.