What's so special about firefox?
category: general [glöplog]
Quote:
nothing at all, but because it's OPEN SOURCE!!!!1, all the world's linux nerds (and a duck) do their marketing for them.
"firefox download day", what the fuck? i'd laugh at anyone suggesting such a farce and now it turns out it actually works
Well, we actually need opensource. FF3 is not my type much though, SeaMonkey for me. If you ever saw interview with Stallman discussing software patents, you'd be surprised why you still use crappy win shit. That's what I did, no win anymore, it was making me sick. Demos? I can run plenty of them flawlessly in wine, but not all of them of course, nothing's perfect. And by using "close source" win crap, you are actually using product from company who was a big unix player at it's time, with another parasite - sco.
I've been using a closed source OS since I started using computers and I've been happy with it ever since, what is wrong with me?
I actually did try Linux, but the facade of usability it has instantly breaks when you need to configure something more advanced than what wallpaper is shown on the desktop. At least in Ubuntu, widely billed as the most user-friendly linux distribution, right?
I actually did try Linux, but the facade of usability it has instantly breaks when you need to configure something more advanced than what wallpaper is shown on the desktop. At least in Ubuntu, widely billed as the most user-friendly linux distribution, right?
Quote:
If you ever saw interview with Stallman discussing software patents, you'd be surprised why you still use crappy win shit.
Actually, watching Stallman discussing pretty much anything makes me go "Oh jeez, and THIS is who they get to hold their flags for them?"
I'm not a fan of patents either, but I believe in the right tools for the right job. Going to Linux JUST BECAUSE OF THE EVIL ALTERNATIVES!!!1111 is retarded.
..oh, and keep your idiotic "closed source win crap" comments to a minimum please, at least until you zealots have created something better than Photoshop, ProTools, ACID and the likes.
just to add a bit more salt'n'pepper you know.
Oh, and the point.. Open Source just for the sake of Open Source is politics, not productivity. Thank you, and good night.
Ubuntu? that's not linux :) It's a millionare project with no vision. Easiest to use is definitely Mandriva, and openSuSE is close too. But Mandriva is just the best in that aspect of usage.
gloom is right! totally...
Quote:
Ubuntu? that's not linux :) It's a millionare project with no vision. Easiest to use is definitely Mandriva, and openSuSE is close too. But Mandriva is just the best in that aspect of usage.
..and I couldn't have asked for a better example of why Linux will always struggle in the desktop OS space. Thanks for that. :)
Who's Stallman?
The poor man's Bill Gates?
The poor man's Bill Gates?
Quote:
..and I couldn't have asked for a better example of why Linux will always struggle in the desktop OS space. Thanks for that. :)
I was like you and it's not so long time. Actually, for me it's not about any form of fanatic alternative, it's simply OS i like to use very much. It just handles exactly to my tastes. I can't even imagine using anything like Vista overhaul anymore. All in all, it's about taste and opinion. Some people don't care how OS looks, worx and generally does things, but they can play their games :) All to it's own.
"To each his own" I guess is what you were aiming for. :) And that is what I'm saying as well. Just too bad that your argumentation above ("crappy win shit") is 100% incompatible with your current argument. It's not something new from Linux zealots of course, I just thought I'd point it out with a big stick.
Oh, and my favourite poison is OSX btw. I use Windows for music (ironic, eh?) and demos only.
Oh, and my favourite poison is OSX btw. I use Windows for music (ironic, eh?) and demos only.
xiaomega: bitches :-/
Quote:
Some people don't care how OS looks, worx and generally does things, but they can play their games
I don't play that many games, though. I just think having to edit several config files hidden in the depths of cryptically named folders using "sudo" in terminal because else I can't save them is not exactly the easiest way to configure my PC. But I guess some people care about how much time they spend doing things that could be done way faster and easier using applications that actually have a decent GUI, as long as they can boast that they havent sold out to Micro$$$$oft and use Open Source instead :)
Yeah, sorry gloom, my english is far from perfect. And I admit that my harsh statement was, well harsh :) I'm usually calm guy, but it wasa just a bit hard for me lately, sorry for that. btw, I'll remember that phrase, so I can translate it correctly next time :)
Note, if you use Linux because you like how it works, fine, no problem with that (in fact, who cares what you use). But, as gloom said, if you use Linux for the sake of not using Windows, that's kind of undermining your own productivity for the sake of promoting the OSS movement agenda. Which I personally find stupid.
@stijntje. Yeah, it's probalby a bit hard in the beggining, but usually only because you are used to another OS. Some things are relly very different. But it's probably not harder than win, only different. One long time linux user told me, that the first os his son saw was linux. He teached him things till he was comfortable with it. Then when he was about to use win, he find it very hard to find things and what to do actually :) So it's point of view. But I understand that it's not easy for some people to invest their time, yes.
Quote:
Note, if you use Linux because you like how it works, fine, no problem with that (in fact, who cares what you use). But, as gloom said, if you use Linux for the sake of not using Windows, that's kind of undermining your own productivity for the sake of promoting the OSS movement agenda. Which I personally find stupid.
Exactly, I explained my approach. Actually I even have MCP for W2K :) So I'm not a typical linux user probably. I don't use win, 'cos I just have no reason, not because it's win, I've been using it before for a long time.
Somebody turned up the heat :P
Use what you find suits you. That is right. "Is it open source" can still be a factor in choosing or not if you don't care about what that might gain. People support open source for all kinds of reasons: compatibility, paranoia (security that is), ideals. All of those can be valid reasons for some people and there are also plenty of valid reasons for using something else.
OTOH, ignorance is not a valid reason for anything so don't bash people as "religious zealots" if you don't even know what the various arguments are.
The point is, there would be no Songbird without Mozilla/Firefox being open source.
Plenty of companies have gone, there may be one or two that have released their sources but it certainly is not typical. BeOS is the counterexample, something that was lost. The Haiku project has been working for a long time to write it all over from scratch. A real open source license can never forbid forks so that is a moot point. Mozilla absolutely cannot destroy anything "with a single signature". The source is, and will always, be there.
Use what you find suits you. That is right. "Is it open source" can still be a factor in choosing or not if you don't care about what that might gain. People support open source for all kinds of reasons: compatibility, paranoia (security that is), ideals. All of those can be valid reasons for some people and there are also plenty of valid reasons for using something else.
OTOH, ignorance is not a valid reason for anything so don't bash people as "religious zealots" if you don't even know what the various arguments are.
Quote:
i know songbird, even have it installed as i find it quite a nice attempt for a different way of media software. but i seriously don't care if it's open source or not...
The point is, there would be no Songbird without Mozilla/Firefox being open source.
Plenty of companies have gone, there may be one or two that have released their sources but it certainly is not typical. BeOS is the counterexample, something that was lost. The Haiku project has been working for a long time to write it all over from scratch. A real open source license can never forbid forks so that is a moot point. Mozilla absolutely cannot destroy anything "with a single signature". The source is, and will always, be there.
Source for the sake of source is also a moot point. Working products is all that matters. I was actually an avid BeOS user for over a year, but Haiku is just stupid -- recreating something that hasn't been a relevant contender in the OS field for years and years just because of nostalgic and "oh, what could have been!"-feelings is equally stupid.
Oh, and I have encountered enough religious zealots in my time (work, demoscene, wherever) to know how to spot one. The Linux community have those in abundance (and you know it very well :) so "ignorance" is not part of this at all.
Oh, and I have encountered enough religious zealots in my time (work, demoscene, wherever) to know how to spot one. The Linux community have those in abundance (and you know it very well :) so "ignorance" is not part of this at all.
slux, the religious zealots i hope to bash is the people who spam my ass (1 forum, three normally very sane and not-so-offtopic mailing lists and one webblog that's usually about politics in my case) about some crap cheap-ass marketing stunt. the people who cannot understand that i do not have the irresistible urge to download a certain program on a certain day. the people who really don't see that they're a pawn in a marketing scheme, serving other people's goals.
don't get me wrong, i don't mind myself or others being a pawn in other people's schemes at all, i do it all the time and happily so (btw the whopper i had the other day was awesome, you should go get one too) - but it's boggling my mind that the anti-corporate nutcases who would boo down a similar scheme from any other software company like capitalist filth, are perfectly happy to tag along now that all of a sudden 1% of the contributors did it outside work time. they're the people who spammed my ass about it. and they're the zealots i hope to bash.
don't get me wrong, i don't mind myself or others being a pawn in other people's schemes at all, i do it all the time and happily so (btw the whopper i had the other day was awesome, you should go get one too) - but it's boggling my mind that the anti-corporate nutcases who would boo down a similar scheme from any other software company like capitalist filth, are perfectly happy to tag along now that all of a sudden 1% of the contributors did it outside work time. they're the people who spammed my ass about it. and they're the zealots i hope to bash.
Oh, which brings us neatly to the following good point: http://valleywag.com/342358/new-mozilla-ceo-wishes-firefox-browsers-profits-were-invisible
Quote:
Now, why would Lilly want you not to pay attention to his very profitable business — $66.8 million in revenues for the foundation, $56 million of which came from the corporation, in 2006, the most recent year for which it reported results? Perhaps it's because there are questions he'd rather you not ask.
hmm, nice one. it kind of debunks my case, though, cause now we can just point and laugh at all the linux zealots who helped triple mozilla's search engine revenue (and lilly's bonuses) in a single day; the zealots will say "ah, ok, woopsie there. but ubuntu!", and so on and so forth. i had hoped to strike the more general point that the idea that something needs everybody's unbridled support just because it sports a certain virtue (such as "being open source") is stupid.
Somehow I think the only people who will be really angry about mozilla making money from their product will be the most ardent firefox supporters :D
