On Tue, 2009-06-09 at 23:31 +0530, febin mohammed wrote: > Well, I was talking from a user point of view (As a user I never had > to tweak Mozilla).
Yes, of course. Most users, rather, almost all users, hardly ever need to tweak any program. But still, I didn't get the point that you were trying to convey. Is it that whether it is software that you get free of cost or it is software that gives you freedoms, it is the same for users? Yes, in a way. But No, in many ways. Because you could be charged, arrested, for using proprietary software without a licence, but not Free Software, as you know. You can't legally give your friend a copy of proprietary software. The benefits of the freedoms are, therefore, for the users, even if they hardly ever have to make use of the freedom to modify or the freedom to redistribute. > Also I feel a little worried when I see some proponents of free > software making it another religion (while they take it emotional when > they have to use anything that is not 'free'). Well, again I partly agree with you. But, if one is actively promoting Free Software, one needs to be very particular about such things. If the promoters are not fastidious about using Free Software, things can soon get diluted and people can easily get to compromise with proprietary software. If that is not to happen, we need to be rather careful not to use proprietary software. And in such a situation, people can take it as a religion. And that is natural, or even necessary. > I am just afraid that it might end up like left parties in Kerala > (read CPIM) where everybody talks Leninism and Karl Marx and nobody > knows what it means (just like most of the religions nowadays ). A lot > of (so called) Open Source proponents are ending up as just Microsoft > bashers and most of them doesn't know what Linux kernel is (I haven't > seen the kernel file either and I am typing this from a Windows Vista > and Google Chrome... forgive me ). All of us may be forced to work on a proprietary system so long as we are working for someone and we have no choice. But just Microsoft bashing, I think, is very different from promoting Free Software. Because Microsoft is not the sole creator of proprietary software, though that is not the only reason why many people hate them. People hate M$ also because of their dirty business tactics and the virtual absence of innovation from their side. And, of course, their virtual monopoly status. But confining one's FS promotion to Microsoft bashing is sad and bad. I hope that doesn't happen. > Please take this in a positive sense (I love the idea of open source > too!) still it is debatable. Well, the concept behind Open Source has its advantages, especially when compared to the proprietary paradigm. But ideologically, Free Software is far superior, in my opinion. Best -- V. Sasi Kumar Free Software Foundation of India Please visit http://swatantryam.blogspot.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ "Freedom is the only law". "Freedom Unplugged" http://www.ilug-tvm.org You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ilug-tvm" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For details visit the website: www.ilug-tvm.org or the google group page: http://groups.google.com/group/ilug-tvm?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
