Freespire's Google ads: "What is Ubuntu Missing?"
Alexander Jacob Tsykin
stsykin at gmail.com
Tue Oct 3 16:06:25 BST 2006
On Wednesday 04 October 2006 00:45, Eric Dunbar wrote:
> > > The primary difference is that Freespire offers the OPTION to install
> > > proprietary software that is 100% illegal if it were done through the
> > > 'open source' model. In most jurisdictions to which members of these
> > > lists belong playing DVDs without an appropriate licence is illegal.
> > we are in agreement here.
> > > > not that it
> > > > is a bad thing. I happen to disagree with it, because I prefer
> > > > software to be free,
> > >
> > > Unfortunately most of the tempest in this particular teapot does not
> > > stem from such a clearly articulated dislike of the notion of
> > > proprietary software/formats (as you put forth) but, instead the
> > > tempest is because of dislike of the company itself and the
> > > fabrication of "facts" regarding said companies behaviour.
> > Of course, and that I disagree with, however I still disapprove of
> > freespire's approach. They have a right to take it on, and people have a
> > right to use it, but I don't like it, and not because I oppose closed
> > source software on ideological grounds.
> How is Freespire's approach different from Ubuntu's? They're adding
> value to open source software and using that to generate income.
> Canonical's business model is to provide the software for free and
> support the users of that software. Linspire's is to provide the
> software for free and support the users by adding software that is
> LEGALLY UNAVAILABLE through free channels.
can't you see that these are fundamentally different business models?
Canonical sells a service, Linspire sells a product.
> If every Tom, Dick and Harry went the free software route and
> supported only free/open source software there wouldn't be an
> encrypted DVD player, we wouldn't have legal (and supported)
> MP3/multi-media playback, etc. Also, there wouldn't be a whole lot of
> room for Canonical to support Ubuntu without ongoing cash injections
> from the SABDFL.
Like I said, I personally try to avoid proprietary software. It doesn't mean I
don't use it, but it does mean that I will find an alternative if I can.
> I presume you also don't visit most internet sites because they run on
> MS or Apple servers or have content created by closed source
> programmes, that you don't communicate with people who use proprietary
> e-mailers, or view images manipulated by Photoshop or... ;-)
see above, but in any case, there is a name for what you are doing here:
ridiculous ad absurdum. It means to take something to its logical extreme so
that it is no longer logical.
> I'm thinking you and I are talking in circles ;-P
that's true ;) maybe we should stop, we've both voiced our opinion, and this
will presently start to just become noise for other readers of the list, if
it hasn't already.
More information about the sounder