Does it work for me

[J Mark Cox]

On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 12:13 -0400, Martin Owens wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 11:30 -0400, J Mark Cox wrote:
> > I have to chip in and say I just don't get it. I started using
> > GNU/Linux
> > because it worked on an old computer that was a freebie. I've never
> > gotten into the whole "it must be free/libre, open source" or it's
> > evil
> > thing. If Windows 95 had installed and run on that old PC I may never
> > have found linux. 
> > 
> > Does it work? For me that is it. 
> 
> I disagree with this sentiment so much, perhaps this analogy can help
> explain:
> 
> Free and Open Source is a tool that you buy, it's not free, it's quite
> expensive. Once you have it, it's yours for life so long as you look
> after it.
> 
> Proprietary software is like a tool you rented using a credit card, it
> comes with strings, you can't do want you want with it only approved
> uses, it aint yours you can't borrow it to your neighbor and it'll cost
> you down the road.
> 
> The difference I think is that people get confused between ownership and
> the commons, yes the stuff is in the commons so you get to use it as if
> you owned it[1] everyone does and the more people that use it the
> stronger it is.
> 
> And then because currently it's given away for free[2] (even though it
> isn't free to make) advertised heavily as being free, and then messed up
> with thoughts on self interest and investments of time, social good,
> charity like feelings of altruism. It's just a mess of reasons, costs
> and importances that serve to confuse.
> 
> I don't believe for a second that a normal person, given a clear
> understanding, could be selfish and self defeating to presume that
> technical practicality is the only importance, that our community isn't
> worth anything, the only importance is that the software works.
> 
> Free Software isn't an airy ideal, it's a real down to earth
> practicalism, it's just that it's a practicalism of tomorrow. Protecting
> yourself and your community from over zealous people who think that just
> because they did a little bit of work it entitles them to be able to
> dictate how things are used after sale.
> 
> And! Every time you say "Nobel ideals are not important" an angel looses
> her wings. ;-)
> 
> Regards, Martin
> 
> [1] I've left out copyright ownership deliberately, I mean to say that
> you have all the effective rights of ownership given the freedoms.
> [2] Free as in cost
> 
> 
> 

I am a carpenter by trade. If I'm way up in some roof doing crazy
framing and my nail gun doesn't fire reliably I'll toss, er throw it to
the ground.

For me, and I stress *for me*, if it works or not really matters. I've
worn out more Porter-Cable framing guns than I have fingers on one hand;
Paslode and Bostick are the best with Hitachi close behind but those
tend to get too hair triggered for my taste.

My construction and tools analogy doesn't port well to computer hardware
and software but perhaps it explains my point of view. 

I fully realize the free software that I use daily is produced by some
one "working" on that software. Back to the blue collar
perspective...what I build is somehow, to me, more tangible.

Hum, so I own what I'm using...software wise...dang it you're making me
think when I'm just supposed to be staking tomatoes today :)

-mark