Modify Colors
March 12, 2009 | News
[tagged: Promotion]
Would You Use Linux If It Were Just Another Proprietary OS?
Several days ago, I wrote about the real reasons why I, and so many others, use Linux.to an overwhelming response. One of the often-cited reasons for using Linux in my post that I dismissed is that it is open-source. Most people seemed to agree, but here is my question:
If Linux was exactly as it is now, except it was proprietary and closed-source, would you still use it?
Personally, I am fairly sure I would still use it. I am far more concerned with the security, desktop environment, and other features than I am with the freedom, but is this the same for you? What would you do if Linux was proprieatary?
Related posts:
- Proprietary Tax Makes Linux $1000 Less Expensive Than Mac, Windows A new study by the IMTSUF reports that, contrary to...
- Linux Has to Support Closed-Source Drivers A recent Linux Devices article summarizes a speech given by...
- The Natural Trend Towards Open-Source in Government Every time you turn around, it seems like another government...
- What Are The Effects Of Open-Source DRM? Open-source DRM may sound like a contradiction, but someone is...
- Why Do You Use Linux? At some point, nearly everyone who uses Linux has someone...
For the simple consumer that I was when I first installed Linux it boiled down to: “Would I pay for Linux or would I pay for Windows NT”. Note that Windows NT cost over $1000 those days and Linux only $100. I payed for Linux. Would the price difference have been the other way around, probably not. Again, as a simple consumer I appreciated the “no-nag-installation” and the vast availability of free software (that I would have to buy or pirate otherwise).
Yes, I’ve learned since then, I’m properly educated in the FOSS philosophy. As a simple consumer, I had other reasons.
No. I would look for another kernel to fit into the GNU system. And if there wasn’t one available, I would organize with others to make it so. In that case, I would likely use Linux until a replacement was ready if it meant using it or not computing at all.
On that note, making Linux proprietary is possible through Treacherous Computing. If it gets to the point where I can’t buy a computer and be able to change how the kernel runs (or be a part of a community that can do this) then it is time to find another kernel – one that isn’t Tivo-ized or simply can’t be because it is under a license like GPLv3.
I wouldn’t use it if it weren’t open source. I would use it if it were non-free as in beer, possibly depenending on cost.
No! Being Free Software [ http://www.fsf.org/about/what-is-free-software ] is its main feature to me, and there are plenty of alternative free software kernels out there to replace it with (i would have replaced linux with hurd [ http://www.debian.org/ports/hurd/ ] already for home use if not for some hardware i have that hurd doesn’t grok yet, the software i use is mostly there even if some have less than perfect ports), I love debian’s [ http://www.debian.org/ ] community but netbsd’s [ http://www.netbsd.org/ ] and openbsd’s [ http://www.openbsd.org/ ] are close contenders in quality and friendlyness and that’s the gist of it, i guess i answered from the pov of a knowledgeable user, but there are also serious alternatives for the work environment and computer newbie.
i stopped using a proprietary os primarily because i never paid for them. there were also too many restrictions in what you could do with your own computer.
i also prefer the community aspect ever since i filed my first bug report and signed up to my first mailing list.
if linux/my distro were to become closed off in any way i would change, i would pay an oem fee say if i were able to choose my OS on laptops. (build my own servers/desktops so no problem there)
complete freedom should always remain the primary goal.
I probably would if there were no free alternatives, but there is, as people mentioned already, BSD and recent Solaris, and if there was no free kernel to use in GNU then more work would have been put into the Hurd, which I guess is what I would be running in that case.
This is when talking about the kernel alone though, GNU would never be proprietary as it was designed against it, but the closest thing to a proprietary GNU would probably be the original UNIX (original UNIX pretty much died before awesome graphics and stuff, and also was mostly for servers, otherwise it could have pretty graphics like FreeBSD / GNU/Linux / OSX too),
and I’d like to point out that OSX contains some free software pieces as well, the kernel (Darwin) being one of them I believe, and they use bash in the terminal and most of the GNU development tools when you install xcode (although heavily modified, but it’s GPL and the sources are available as required), still a bad fruit for locking in the rest though
Simply and very clearly said: No!
proprietary OS ? … nah, i don’t like em apple that much
>so basically the question is if i would go fruity, answer no.
Ahh honey, fruits wont hurt you. Well, maybe a bit your first time but after that’s eez pure lovin.
As for the question, as mentioned above, what is your question? Linux the kernel or the so called whole OS?
The kernel can be exchanged for a BSD or Solaris one and you would notice the difference as a user with your KDE, XCFE desktops so I presume you mean Gnu-Linux as in everything taht comes with it and fall under the misnomer which again is a pretty invalid question which Alan above explains why.
However, that question was also moot even 5 years ago when the desktop still wasnt functional so i guess its something were gonna hear more and more (especially with the new crop of Bubuntu users who are about as annoying as Macheads. i appreciate exhuberance but not at the benefit of rational thought.)
Linux the OS offers not only a good OS (and like I said, BSD is good to) technically but the ability to work with a pool of like minded developers from other projects and benefit from collaborative efforts which is really the effect of the GPL.
Linux without the GPL is BSD, great project that I would never work on. I want my work to serve other people, I dont want it to be locked in for the benefits of few. I like for a project to advance on its merits, not be held back until company X has found a way to fit it into its product roadmap. While proprietary desktops take years in between paying updates, distros and desktops like KDE are putting up new things every 6 months. For free.
Linux is in my country of Brazil very important because of the poverty of a good deal of the population and even for middle income families, PC’s cost about 3-4 times more.
The freedom to be able to take a project and regionalize it is important here but the free as in gratis is especially important.
Both free and free are important.
>Apple is a prime example of what proprietary Linux would look like.
Exactly.
so basically the question is if i would go fruity, answer no.
Apple is a prime example of what proprietary Linux would look like.
“If Linux was exactly as it is now, except it was proprietary and closed-source, would you still use it?”
Still generally free of cost? Then yes.
Not free? Then yes up to about 25% the cost of Mac or Win.
I started using Linux (0.99pl12) because of what it provided on a PC, not because it was OSS. I continue using it because it provides (stable development environment mostly) but I also believe strongly in OSS and, if all else is the same (or close enough), I will choose OSS over proprietary any day.
Are you asking if I would use a proprietary kernel, or a complete proprietary system with all apps being proprietary?
Would you security and desktop environment be possible if it had to rely on closed source libs written by other people, compiled in the way the authors wanted to for whatever platforms they wished?
I would use it knowing what I know now, but would probably NOT have taken it up in the first place if there had been a cost involved.
The problem with the question is that Linux wouldn’t be what it is without being free software. Think about how much the licensing is just woven through the fabric of what it is. It’s not just some convenient, incidental fact.
Take the modularity of it, for instance. If the developers had been making something proprietary, they would not have designed it with the idea that you might want to use a different Window manager or desktop environment. They’d have picked the one they like, and tied it so deep into the kernel you’d never be able to uninstall it or get full functionality from another one. But because it’s open, because anyone can take any number of FOSS projects and put them together into a distro, and because I might just as easily be using another guy’s wm in my distro as yours, you have to make it modular and interface using standards.
That’s just one example. But if you think about any aspect of it, and how it relates to being FOSS, you will see that it would lose something being proprietary.