Print
While anticipation continues to build for Windows 7, not everyone is stoked about Microsoft's upcoming OS, or Windows in general. Enter the Free Software Foundation, which plans to stage a demonstration today in Boston where it will encourage businesses to look the other way come October 22nd and consider free alternatives instead.
"There's kind of this attitude of 'Well, it's better than Vista,'" so we are kind of working against the grain," Peter Brown, Executive Director of Free Software Foundation, said in an interview with Cnet.
The demonstration will focus mainly on Windows 7, but according to Brown, his Foundation's beef is with Microsoft's approach in general and not necessarily with any specifics of the upcoming OS.
And it's not just Microsoft that has the foundation in a tizzy. The group is also concerned with Apple's Snow Leopard OS, which will be available later this week.
Comments are closed on this article
mdkplus
September 04, 2009 at 12:19am
Looks to me that their beef is with the actual monopolizing conglomerate corporate model that MS has become. If that's the case they are barking up the wrong tree. The formula for creating a ginourmous company like MS is this: Greed(main ingredient) + Free Enterprise + Consumer Bias = Companys like Microsoft. And I don't see them being able to change the formula anytime soon.
foamcup
August 27, 2009 at 2:14pm
These hippies are protesting an issue that most people niether know nor care about.
Havok
August 27, 2009 at 8:08am
Man, if it weren't for this flame war, I think global warming would be non existent.
If people don't want reliable help and support, let them run Linux. Everyone else, get a PC or Mac for goodness sake. That being said, I'm not trying to piss on open source, but come on. How many businessmen does it take to screw in a light-bulb? Ok, now how many does it take to get real help and support on an open platform with no real support infrastructure? Forums are great, so is calling your neighbour for help, but is the average 'suit' really gonna take time to patch his own kernel? No, but he can fire up a chat with some Microsoft or Apple support 'technician' and let someone who is being paid to know what they're doing fix they're system with remote access.
I still like penguins, but sometimes, you just have to look through a rotting apple to see out the window.
OMGWTFBBQ
silentrob187
August 26, 2009 at 8:58pm
While I agree and appreciate those who give their time to produce free software (e.g. Open Office) the fact remains that withouth for profit software we would not have PC as they exist today nor would updates be as quickly as they are. You can complain about every two years but without the funds and motivation to update software it would not happen. Besides why they hell does anyone care how much money MS makes. No one is forcing anyone to buy the software or use PCs. You can go live in the woods eat grass and wipe your ass with leaves. Me, I prefer to live in a FREE CAPITALIST society where profit motivates and rewards innovation...even if it is not perfect at least I do not have to wait in line for food or worry about speaking out against my government...well at least not yet.
mdkplus
September 04, 2009 at 12:26am
I would replace the word "profit" with "greed", that seems to be what motivates the majority now.
Vegan
August 26, 2009 at 11:17am
Everything should be free, guys! I live in a house made of lollipops and use a unicorn to get around in my fantasy land where I survive off the distilled goodwill of my fellow man!
MeTo
August 27, 2009 at 9:46am
If Microsoft did not hord 50 billion $ they could charge 1/2 price and only hord 25 billion $ what a life.
nekollx
August 27, 2009 at 9:52am
i can agree with this.
All these companies really inflate the price, and in a recession thats just silly. To be fair though i dont see anything wrong with paying $150 for a OS, thats like 3 games. I think a OS is worth At least 3 games/applications, but by the same token i dont expect to buy a new OS every 3 months like i do a game.
Adobe is just wack.
Why does Photoshop cost twice as much as the OS? I mena without the OS you can't even run it but for the price of one Cs4 i could get Snow Leopard AND Windows 7, and have enough left over for a Smart phone.
------------------------------
Coming soon to Lulu.com --Tokusatsu Heroes--
Five teenagers, one alien ghost, a robot, and the fate of the world.
1337Goose
August 27, 2009 at 10:27am
Photoshop happens to be the most pirated application on the face of the planet.
Unfortunately, paying customers have to foot the bill on all that lost revenue due to pirating.
Photoshop is also technically considered a professional tool. Using it for everyday retouching is like buying a race-car for street driving, or at least that's what Adobe wants.
~Goose
nekollx
August 27, 2009 at 10:34am
i still feel charging 2-4 times the cost of the mandatory OS you need to run it is rediculos. I mean if i have to spend 700 bucks on photoshop how can i aford windows 7 :p
------------------------------
Coming soon to Lulu.com --Tokusatsu Heroes--
Five teenagers, one alien ghost, a robot, and the fate of the world.
1337Goose
August 27, 2009 at 10:42am
Yeah, fair enough. $700 is a steep price to pay. But again, it's technically a pro-tool. They'd rather have you use Photoshop Elements for average, everyday use.
Personally, I use The Gimp and it seems to do everything I've ever wanted from a photo manipulation program.
~Goose
nekollx
August 27, 2009 at 10:52am
the thing its still three times the price of Windows 7 Pro (and twice that of ultimate!)
How does a Application cost more then a "pro" OS?
------------------------------
Coming soon to Lulu.com --Tokusatsu Heroes--
Five teenagers, one alien ghost, a robot, and the fate of the world.
Ntldr
August 26, 2009 at 11:03am
I don't know if any of you have gone to their website and looked at it or not, but it is laughable. I will toss up a list of their 7 reasons why it is evil.
1. Poisoning education: Today, most children whose education
involves computers are being taught to use one company's product:
Microsoft's. Microsoft spends large sums on lobbyists and marketing
to corrupt educational departments. An education using the power of
computers should be a means to freedom and empowerment, not an
avenue for one corporation to instill its monopoly.2. Invading privacy: Microsoft uses software with backward names
like Windows Genuine Advantage to inspect the contents of users'
hard drives. The licensing agreement users are required to accept
before using Windows warns that Microsoft claims the right to do
this without warning.3. Monopoly behavior: Nearly every computer purchased has
Windows pre-installed -- but not by choice. Microsoft dictates
requirements to hardware vendors, who will not offer PCs without
Windows installed on them, despite many people asking for them. Even
computers available with other operating systems like GNU/Linux
pre-installed often had Windows on them first.4. Lock-in: Microsoft regularly attempts to force updates on its
users, by removing support for older versions of Windows and Office,
and by inflating hardware requirements. For many people, this means
having to throw away working computers just because they don't meet
the unnecessary requirements for the new Windows versions.5. Abusing standards: Microsoft has attempted to block free
standardization of document formats, because standards like
OpenDocument Format would threaten the control they have now over
users via proprietary Word formats. They have engaged in underhanded
behavior, including bribing officials, in an attempt to stop such
efforts.6. Enforcing Digital Restrictions Management (DRM): With Windows
Media Player, Microsoft works in collusion with the big media
companies to build restrictions on copying and playing media into
their operating system. For example, at the request of NBC,
Microsoft was able to prevent Windows users from recording
television shows that they have the legal right to record.7. Threatening user security: Windows has a long history of
security vulnerabilities, enabling the spread of viruses and
allowing remote users to take over people's computers for use in
spam-sending botnets. Because the software is secret, all users are
dependent on Microsoft to fix these problems -- but Microsoft has
its own security interests at heart, not those of its users.I will address as many of these as I can.
1: I am unsure about every school in the US but in the area I grew up in the schools in the district and all the schools we competed agains in sports all had Macs not PCs.
2: What OS doesn't scan your drives and report what you are using. Weather it is known or not it happens.
3: Um ya they sell machines with Windows pre installed because they have made business contracts with Microsoft or Microsoft offered them a contract and they accepted.
4: You can't support software forever. I mean honestly do you still expect OS support for Windows 95 or 3.1?? This is the natural order of things programs or OSs come out they go for a time then they are done.
5: Don't really know anything on this subject so I will not say anything on it.
6: Recording things to a VHS or DVR is one thing, recording them to files on a computer and mass dispursing them for free to people is why this happens. Not saying I am totally innocent of watching videos online that someone else put up, but that is the reason these things come in place.
7: If you have any type of Anti Virus program which they are all readily available you can protect yourself from the bots and viruses. Also read up on how Viruses and other Malware works before you critisize how it goes. If you have a solution to stop these things before they happen please feel free to spill it out on here. Oh thats right you can't unless you created it and caused the problem.
This is to the morons of the FSF. I am not crazy in love with Microsoft but when they actually do something right it should be applauded. Windows 7 completely blew my mind because of Vista I was not expecting what I got from the Beta, then the RC came out and it was better, and from what I have heard from friends with Technet, the RTM is better than the RC by quite a bit.
I will now step down from my soap box sorry for those of you that have to suffer through this because of other people that do not think before they speak.
PS. Apple and Microsoft did do this to themselves by providing a product that people use and others develope programs for. Bravo to Apple and Microsoft for doing what they should do and at the same time Bad MS and Apple for the things you did that was not up to the level we know you can be at.
lien_meat
August 26, 2009 at 2:37pm
The free software foundation is like the NRA sometimes. They have some good
ideas, and then they take them way too far and freak everyone out, or sound downright rediculuous.I kinda just want to point somethings out that are true about these points, even though YES, they do take them too far.
1. At many schools nowdays, teachers require you to turn in your assignments in electronic formats. In lower income brackets, some families are spending more money than they can afford to buy required products like the Office Suite to use on their home pcs to turn in those assignments. Most of the time there is a free alternative that does work for what the student REALLY needs to be able to do. Will open office do everything that Word does, HELL NO! Will it work for typing out a report to turn in and get the same grade as they would with a for-pay application like word? YES...nearly 100% of the time yes. This is ACTUALLY where this argument comes from...and YES, they did a TERRIBLE job portraying it in the right light.
2. Licensing agreements suck. Being legaly bound to certain conditions upon using a product isn't a situation I like to get myself into if I can help it. However, this is a stupid reason not to buy a good product unless you need it for something that disagrees with the license. (probably doesn't happen too often...)
3. This is the whole microsoft tax argument. Supposedly microsoft gives big discounts to put their product on a certain percentage of an OEM's computers. This means that it becomes actually more costly for OEMs to put anything else on a computer, cause it eats away at their big discounts. I have no proof of this of course...it's just what I've been told. Now...lots of companies make deals like this...even if they are in a legal gray area...so it's definatly not just microsoft....and it still not a great reason to use a free alternative...
4. This DOES actually happen. It's how they make money...getting you to buy their products...but it's not like it's a huge, un-avoidable threat. Usually there is a way to convert to a document to a different format...so it's an annoyance, but it's not the worst thing that ever happened.
5. This does definately take place. Many officials durring the testing of the OOXML spec were in fact bribed. That's the latest case like that to hit the news...there are others. It's nasty, and it's one of the kinds of things that microsoft in particular is known for.
6. I agree with NTDLR on this somewhat. The problem is that drm usually hurts the innocent more than the pirates. I'm personally against drm, mostly cause it doesn't really work very well and serves as an annoyance and a cost to the rest of us who aren't pirates. Is it a reason not to buy windows...of course not....not unless you are actually being hindered from something you need to do somehow.
7. The security argument is just gonna cause a flaim war that I don't want to be involved in. not going there. If you have trouble with security on an OS, try something else, if not, great, maybe you have a brain.
So, following up then, there are some valid points hidden in there...but even then, it's not a reason not to buy and OS that you possibly need to run for some reason or another (may it be convenience or hardware support or software support...etc).
There IS great free software out there. There are great free OS'es out there too. There are times when free software would actually fit the bill better than non-free proprietary software. Is this always the case? of course not. Point is, if it makes sense, use it, but consider what you are using and whether your money spent was justified.
I'll admit it. I mostly run Linux. Am I in love with linux? Sure, but we've been together for a while now, and I can see through some of that love blindness you get with a new relationship. Does linux have it's flaws? Hell yeah it does! does windows have flaws? Of course. Is linux better than windows? Depends on what you need to do with your OS. Is either OS for everybody? HELL NO. There...I think that settles it.
There are things with both windows and linux that drive me crazy when I use them. Honestly, I find my experience in linux to be gennerally LESS annoying than in windows...but it took me a long time to GET linux well enough so that was the case. Sometimes when I go back into windows, I have to do the same kind of ajustment I had to do for linux, and for goodness sakes, I grew up on windows. You learn to love linux just like you've learned to love windows...but love isnt' always enough.
### I'm an idiot, and I approve this message ###
Ntldr
August 26, 2009 at 2:52pm
I do agree on the DRM deal. It sucks no matter what. I understand some of their points but at the same time they didn't really put much into it, they just seemed to fire shots in the air and hoped to hit something. I am not against linux and opensource software, I like them. As for productivity and things that I do weather it is at home or work, Microsoft and other well known companies have the advantage in many ways. If I can do something with a Linux OS or Opensource software you can bet I will do it, but that is a limited experience. If the FSF wants things to change then they need to get opensource programmers to step it up not trying to start a fight there, and not saying that Microsoft has been the top on it. At work I have a dual boot setup with XP for now until 7 comes out, and in the process of wiping Ubuntu off to put on a customized version of Sabayon and a Gentoo one I have been playing with. Security issues will always cause wars but oh well.
I Jedi
August 26, 2009 at 3:59pm
Agreed. You don't win battles by slandering your opponets and trying to weaken their position with half-truth bullshit. Instead, you rally people together to form into an organization that is based on fair competition, building great software, and having a great fundamental platform for which everyday users can use. Linux is a great platform, but it's simply not built for the average joe. Ubuntu comes close, but with Windows just so familiar to the average man/woman, it's easier to use that instead. I've tried several Linux distros before and all of them are very well built, but not all are meant to be ready to use so readily.
Slated
September 08, 2009 at 12:55pm
@I Jedi
"You don't win battles by slandering your opponets"
You mean slander like "Linux is a cancer", "Linux violates 235 Microsoft patents" and "Red Hat customers owe Microsoft money"?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/06/02/ballmer_linux_is_a_cancer/
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/05/28/100033867/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en-GB&v=5B0GTYfPoMo"and trying to weaken their position with half-truth bullshit"
Like Microsoft's anti-Linux propaganda training brief for Best Buy employees?
http://www.overclock.net/windows/569458-microsoft-attack-linux-retail-level-probably.html
"Instead, you rally people together to form into an organization that is based on fair competition,"
And how exactly is one supposed to engage in "fair competition" with multiple convicted monopolists like Microsoft, who have completely sewn up the entire software distribution channel with nefarious "contracts" to guarantee exclusivity?
Oh yes, "poor" Microsoft is being attacked by those nasty Freetard people again. Except you seem to have overlooked the rather obvious fact that Microsoft are:
a) Convicted criminals
b) Monopolists
c) The aggressorsThe GNU/Linux and Free Software community is merely defending itself against these predatory thugs. You seem to think Microsoft are the victims here. Apparently you have some catching up to do.
1337Goose
September 08, 2009 at 1:10pm
"Linux is a cancer" was nothing but bad press for Microsoft. When that statement was made, we were all outraged at Microsoft. I'm a Linux user and a Microsoft user, and I don't think it's fair for either of them do this type of thing.
The point is, we're not taking sides here. I'm not saying that Microsoft is unequivocally correct 100% of the time, and I'm also not saying that the Linux people are wrong all of the time. However, when something like this happens, where one side decides to throw stones, it's the consumer's job to call bullshit.
When Microsoft was whining about Mozilla's 1 billion downloads claim, we definitely let Microsoft know that they were being absurd, and that's exactly what we've done here.
From what you wrote, it almost sounds like you condone this type of activity from the Free Software Foundation. However, I don't think it's right for either side to resort to negative publicity and slander. That's just my two cents.
~Goose
Slated
September 09, 2009 at 10:20am
You seem to view the FSF as some kind of competing corporation, that should restrain its belligerent reactions to Microsoft's criminal behaviour, for the sake of commercial professionalism.
What software does the FSF /sell/?
How would you characterise the FSF as a corporate entity?
Obviously, they're /not/, they are far more like a pressure group of activists, and as such they represent a segment of the /people/, /not/ corporations. It's isn't their job to shut up and be polite, it's their job to scream from the rooftops to remind people that the world's biggest software company is operated like a bunch of gangsters running a racketeering operation.
Apparently you think the FSF should be suckers and "turn the other cheek" for Microsoft to bitchslap them again and again, whilst standing motionless with a stupid grin on their faces.
Not going to happen.
Oh and I see a lot of "FSF is slandering" and "this type of behaviour" bullshit from the sheeple in this thread. Please explain in as much legal detail as you can muster /exactly/ what in the FSF's article is untrue, slanderous and actionable. I'm sure Eben Moglen (Professor of Law and Legal history at Columbia University, Director-Counsel and Chairman, Software Freedom Law Center) will be absolutely fascinated to hear about it.
Meanwhile, if you need to research the veracity of claims against /Microsoft/, you could do worse than start here:
http://antitrust.slated.org/www.iowaconsumercase.org/
And this one in particular:
[quote]
Our mission is to establish Microsoft's platforms as the de facto standards throughout the computer industry.... Working behind the scenes to orchestrate "independent" praise of our technology, and damnation of the enemy's, is a key evangelism function during the Slog. "Independent" analyst's report should be issued, praising your technology and damning the competitors (or ignoring them). "Independent" consultants should write columns and articles, give conference presentations and moderate stacked panels, all on our behalf (and setting them up as experts in the new technology, available for just $200/hour). "Independent" academic sources should be cultivated and quoted (and research money granted). "Independent" courseware providers should start profiting from their early involvement in our technology. Every possible source of leverage should be sought and turned to our advantage.
[/quote]http://antitrust.slated.org/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/3000/PX03096.pdf
~ James Plamondon, Microsoft's former Chief Technology EvangelistYou know, I think I actually like it better when I'm dealing with frothing Microsoft fanboys than these "be reasonable" types. The platitudes, pragmatism and apathy towards these corporate thugs makes me want to puke. Is there not even /one/ of you who feels even the slightest outrage by Microsoft's racketeering?
1337Goose
September 09, 2009 at 1:00pm
I absolutely agree with you. That attack at my intelligence made me see the light, and now I'm totally on your side.
I only really have one questions for you: Whether the FSF's claims are true or not, do you really think they've taken the right approach here? Think hard about that one.
And if you really think that "standing on the rooftop screaming" is the best way to promote your software, think hard about that one too.
Finally, if you don't agree with my opinion, I'd love to hear it in a civilized manner... but it's always fun to hear that occasional person tell me that my opinions make him/her "want to puke." Very classy.
~Goose
1337Goose
August 26, 2009 at 4:47pm
Totally agree. That "slandering the opponent" completely wreaks of Apple.
~Goose
lien_meat
August 26, 2009 at 3:37pm
I completely agree. They did just fire shots into the air. Probably desparately trying to grab any recognition they can...which I'm not sure why they care...since it's not like we are short on opensource/free software or anything...
I think it backfired honestly.
### I'm an idiot, and I approve this message ###
Wingzero_x
August 26, 2009 at 12:45pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I25UeVXrEHQ]
We'll just call it Richard Stallman has a snack.
As Swisgar would say is "dildos"!
Personally I think this guy, his foundation, and his plilosohies do more harm to Linux than good. Oh BTW according to Linus Torvalds it's not always GNU/Linux, sometimes it's Red Hat Linux, Suse Linux etc. (source; Revolution OS)
Baer
August 26, 2009 at 10:45am
I no longer mess with Linux, why? It was simply a pain, so many things I could not do with it, so many tweaks to make things work. Except that the price was less there were no advantages and what is my time worth anyway. I guess if it were a hobby, like extreme hardware tweaking is for me, it would be worth it but it is not that enjoyable for me to be constantly trying to stay on top of a non mainstreem OS. For me to spend a few hundred$$ every three years or so is worth not having to be out of step with most of the world. I am no MS fanboi but I do feel that............Linux is the OS of the future and always will be!
LatiosXT
August 26, 2009 at 9:32am
The problem with switching is that...
1. Does FOSS have software that meet the requirements of what businesses want?
2. Will the transition be nearly painless and I daresay, as effortless as copying and pasting a file?
3. Certainly it will require training, but how much? Time is money, and businesses would rather spend that time with something familiar.
It's why some businesses still run 20+ year old software because it still meets their requirements and transitioning now would "waste" time.
linkmaster6
August 26, 2009 at 9:06am
Oh for shit's sake, lets take down Microsoft and Apple get them in ruins so the unstructured Freesoftware Foundation can come in and have it their way and then realise..... We should charge for this!
I'm all for having a lower price on software but come on.
MeTo
August 26, 2009 at 9:22am
Microsoft & Apple brought this on them self's. Come on every two years they come out with a new operation system and say if you want the latest and greatest you have to buy are new system it wont work with the old system. I say the next OS i buy will be on the computer at the time i "NEED" one when i need one. I am done with all this Tom Foolery.
nekollx
August 26, 2009 at 9:30am
every 2 years? Um XP came out a decade before Vista.
New computer? 7 runs on netbooks and a pentium 2?
I think your confuseing Apple with Everyone else
------------------------------
Coming soon to Lulu.com --Tokusatsu Heroes--
Five teenagers, one alien ghost, a robot, and the fate of the world.
MeTo
August 26, 2009 at 10:57am
When did vista come out? Duh. Microsoft has moved to a two year calender for OS.
LatiosXT
August 26, 2009 at 9:39am
Sure Windows 7 runs on a Pentium 2, but it's about as fast as a horse with a broken leg And Vista came out in 2007. XP came out in 2001.
Wingzero_x
August 26, 2009 at 12:25pm
And how would a modern full featured Linux distro run on a PII?
1337Goose
August 26, 2009 at 12:31pm
Let's be fair. Linux wins this round. There's no point of running a modern full blown distro of Linux on a PII because you have watered down versions available. With windows, the watered down versions are decades old, unsupported, and have gaping security holes.
However! This should not be interpreted as Windows bashing on my part. I love Windows, and IMHO, it's presently the best goddamn general purpose operating system on the planet. I just think it's good to step back and get a more wholistic view, once in a while, and realize that Windows will won't win 100% of the time.
~Goose
nekollx
August 26, 2009 at 9:45am
ah right i must be forgetting my math
soooooo 2001 +2 = 2007 + 2 = 2010 (or late 2009)
Thanks!
I always hated math.
------------------------------
Coming soon to Lulu.com --Tokusatsu Heroes--
Five teenagers, one alien ghost, a robot, and the fate of the world.
linkmaster6
August 26, 2009 at 9:05am
Oh for shit's sake, lets take down Microsoft and Apple get them in ruins so the unstructured Freesoftware Foundation can come in and have it their way and then realise..... We should charge for this!
I'm all for having a lower price on software but come on.
1337Goose
August 26, 2009 at 8:50am
I dual boot Linux and WinXP, and I use Linux about 70% and Windows about 30%, but I still couldn't recommend Linux to the general population.
Having an operating system that is vastly supported by Microsoft and hardware vendors alike has its own distinct advantages.
~Goose
Wingzero_x
August 26, 2009 at 12:27pm
I'll admit I don't use Linux, cept maybe for the occasional LiveCD, or experiment. (Pendrive Linux!!) It just does'nt offer me anything, however that doesn't mean I can't see some of it's merits, and I have recommended it to some.
Problem with the FSF, and the RMS philosophy, is it just doesn't work in the real world. People use applications not the OS, Linus Torvalds has even said this, until Linux, BSD, etc, can run applications people want to use/buy it's always going to be a nitch OS.
lien_meat
August 26, 2009 at 2:59pm
I do run linux almost exclusively (dual booted with 7). The problem with linux I believe is that they (meaning linux proponents) don't want proprietary software running on their OS. I think that's just stupid. Do I prefer open source solutions? I do if they are truely solutions...heck yes. Is proprietary software necessary? YES. Can EVERYTHING be open source and free? Don't make me kill someone...of course not. If the software is free, then you have to charge for something else in order to make money...we don't live in a utopia. Would I pay to run proprietary software on my ubuntu desktop? You bet your ass I would! Especially if it was something I actually have to run anyway. Linux isn't changing any time soon. Sometimes adopting a proprietary solution DOES make more sense then trying to re-create an open source version...until linux distros realize that I actually do want proprietary software on my computer, it is going to be a nitch OS....I don't mind that personally, but I just want them to understand why they always fail to overtake windows if that's what they are aiming for.
### I'm an idiot, and I approve this message ###
