Comments on: Would You Use Linux If It Were Just Another Proprietary OS?

By: Hans Bezemer

Hans Bezemer — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 06:51:16 +0000

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.

By: Peter

Peter — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 00:36:15 +0000

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.

By: Caleb Cushing ( xenoterracide )

Caleb Cushing ( xenoterracide ) — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 00:10:09 +0000

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.

By: anonymous

anonymous — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 23:44:31 +0000

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.

By: lachlan

lachlan — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 23:35:07 +0000

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.

By: Rakhun

Rakhun — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 22:09:06 +0000

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

By: Jan Hopmans

Jan Hopmans — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 12:53:12 +0000

Simply and very clearly said: No!

By: manny

manny — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 03:29:40 +0000

proprietary OS ? … nah, i don’t like em apple that much

By: Rolles Gracie

Rolles Gracie — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 19:44:20 +0000

>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.

By: Annonymous Coward

Annonymous Coward — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 15:18:28 +0000

so basically the question is if i would go fruity, answer no.

Apple is a prime example of what proprietary Linux would look like.