Edit: This article was intended to specifically address certain types of of open source advocates, as stated in the title. This article is not intended to label all open source advocates as hypocrites. See comments by the author below.
Today, and almost every day, I’ll read an article about a proprietary computer company (Microsoft, Apple, etc) and “open source” technologies and communities. Every time I read them I see a large percentage of “user participants” in comments, responses, etc. that make me cringe.
Today’s example was ZDNet’s article “Open source should support Apple over Psystar“. I thought it was a great, simple article:
I have been wracking my brain all day for an angle on this Apple-Psystar story (great work by Adrian Kingsley-Hughes) and I can’t come up with one.
Save this. Open source should be supporting Apple here.
The writer goes on to basically say that the Open Source world relies on users respecting the licenses and agreements made by the people who download their software. Apple has a EULA and Psystar is basically breaking that agreement. She admits that Apple’s EULA is nasty and removes any rights for a user, but that user by choice bought an Apple product.
However, what kind of comments show up?
If you accept Apple EULA you give your soul to the devil (and all your possession must be Apple approved, you cannot use the software to its full potential: like on a REAL computer, you surrender all freedom and you are sucked down into the whorst artificial monopoly ever witness by mankind)
However their kernel choice is an open source kernel, and if this is the part that is being modified then the issue is moot.
Apple doesn’t support Open Source. Where’s my version of iTunes for Linux? Glad to see they were able to take KHTML and make Safari out of it. Where’s the love in return?
There isn’t any. Recompiling iTunes for another *nix kernel would be trivial. It’s missing because they don’t think the open source community matters to them.
I say let ’em swing in the wind.
hell no open source should not support apple over psystar. i have download the os 10.5 patch myself along with a copy of os 10.5. why would i pay apple 2400 dollars for a computer that is not as fast as the one i am using, that i built for less than 1500 dollars(including xp). as far as the eula is concerned it means nothing to me. i signature is not their. as i have stated before once i buy a piece of software i will do whatever i want with it.
Here is the problem in a nutshell: Proprietary Companies (Microsoft, IBM, etc) have legally fought Open Source to snuff out competition. Open Source people fought back for their rights and defend them. They declared that open source “is about choice!” Its allowing people to choose different software than the typical proprietary solutions. These open source projects have adopted licenses to prevent people abusing their Intellectual Property. While Open Source people might scream at me for saying that, in essence that is what all of these open source projects are: intellectual property that is owned by the public, instead of by a person or corporation.
So open source advocates scream and yell when people violate the intellectual property of the public. However, when it is the intellectual property of a company, especially someone like Microsoft or Apple, that it doesn’t matter because they are “evil.” Regardless of the hundreds, thousands, millions, and billions of dollars they have invested into their IP, its okay to disregard that due to the fact their “business principles don’t line up with mine.”
It is a double standard that thousands and thousands of Open Source users are taking. It is a total crime for a business to abuse open source licenses, however its okay to for users to abuse business’s licenses. When companies mess with open source, open source users run to the law for protection. Yet when the roles are reversed, open source users say “screw the law” and go with their own ‘moral compass’.
My question to these people are: what about my choice?
I’m willing to pay for my copy of windows. I support Microsoft in their endeavor to make better products. I enjoy programming in .NET because it saves me time. That is my choice. I love my MacBook Pro. I like the quickness and responsiveness I get from it. It is my choice to buy from a company whose value is in their Quality Control.
But hypocritical open source advocates tell me I’m wrong and evil because I’m making the “wrong” choice. I’ve seen a serious trend with open source users that instead of arguing for choice, are arguing what I should choose. Yes! By all means you can choose whatever you want to do. If you want to run only on open source technologies, more power to you. But don’t call me “evil” for being willing to pay for software that makes my life easier.
I support open source. I love what it is doing to the technology industry. However, there are many open source users that I cannot stand. Stand up for choice, but stop being hypocrites when telling me that my choices are wrong, because thats not choice at all.
Justin Carmony 
Spot on.
This also reminds me of people who, because they don’t like DRM (Digital Rights Management), they assume they can trample copyright law and just take music because that’s how they “feel” it should be.
Artists, developers, authors, etc., all have a right to license their works how T H E Y see fit. We then have a right to enter into that agreement with them or not. We do NOT have a right to disregard their wishes and just ignore copyright law. If someone philosophically opposes DRM, then their choice is to not buy music that uses DRM. I think DRM is bad for record companies, but I defend an artists right to deal with THEIR music in the way they see fit.
Kevin
LikeLike
An excellent point sir.
LikeLike
The keyword is “advocates.” Once you start treating free software as a cause, everything becomes a means to that cause. Copyright law? Great when it helps, but ignore it when it doesn’t. Licenses? Same thing.
Don’t advocate. Use and improve, and recommend only when it makes sense.
LikeLike
Great post. Well written. I hope that those hypocrites that you speak of find their way to this post and digest the information therein.
Unfortunately, those people are the kind of people who would simply post responses to your article that are similar to those that you have quoted. The point of the post would be missed, and a flame war would errupt. Such is the nature of the beast when dealing with fanboys/fanatics/advocates.
Cheers.
LikeLike
1) you listed two open source fighters and the one of them actually makes money off open source.
2)wtf do these people you are referring have to do with open source? you read some random comments of random people in a random site. Yes the people that wrote these comments are obviously total noobs that don’t write software, get it? Heck you even mentioned some mac fag running a pirated version of mac os x as being an open source person. are you serious or what?
3)you are a total noob yourself
i rest my case
LikeLike
I predict the FSF community will start accusing you of being an M$ (How witty!) or RIAA shill after this post, regardless of any truth in it.
LikeLike
yeah chlorus, as if we don’t get you are a “linux haters blog” troll.
LikeLike
“Anonymous” people always have a lot to say…
LikeLike
@Anonymous
This topic has been on my mind a lot and that post reminded me of all the frustrations I’ve had with the FOSS community. Yes the example was far from perfect, and if I wanted to I could gather plenty of more complete examples. However, I wrote this for the sake of venting my frustrations, not to hold up in court. I honestly don’t have the time to put together a large list of examples. I have other major projects to deal with atm.
LikeLike
I totally agree with you. And there’s more: sometimes I wonder how much value do open source advocates give to open source products. If Ubuntu now asked that each person that uses it, should donate a quantity worth the price of Vista, how much open source advocates would pay for it? If they defend that Linux have batter quality, why shouldn’t them?
LikeLike
Like you, I have other things to do, so I’ll only hit on a few problems with your post:
EULAs restrict software use; open source licenses restrict only source code use. Comparing them is akin to comparing the constitutions of North Korea and the US.
Whether Pystar is breaking the EULA is definitely up for debate and will (presumably) be determined by a judge and/or jury, not a random ZDNet author, and not by you, in all likelihood.
In the case of open source advocates, if they don’t “scream and yell”, nobody else will, because there are few multi-billion-dollar firms and large legal teams looking out for the pantheon of open source project.
True open source advocates will also “scream and yell” against legal maneuvers of companies that they feel are abusing their “intellectual property” via contracts of adhesion and the like. Some firms, like Microsoft, get a shorter leash due to past indiscretions.
Undoubtedly, there are some open source advocates who pirate software. Painting all open source advocates, let alone users, as pirates has all the proof of saying all Carmonys are murderers.
And your proof of this assertion is…what exactly? I have yet to see a study that demonstrates that “open source users” are significantly more likely to to pirate software than users as a whole. If there’s one out there, I’d love to see it.
Some open source advocates have a different set of criteria for judging software; by their criteria, you are making the wrong choice. This is not significantly different than if you were a vegetarian and wondered why people who ate meat thought you were making the wrong choice. Or if you were a converted Jew and Christians thought you were making the wrong choice.
Their opinions are not wrong. Their methods for expressing that opinion might be.
Have you posted a blog entry complaining about the serious trend with marketers that, instead of arguing for choice, are arguing what you should choose? If not, what is the difference between open source users marketing their position and marketers marketing their position?
The comments you cite from the ZDNet article are, on the whole, regrettable. Had you written this post slightly differently, focusing solely on those morons, that would have been excellent. Instead, your piece is a character assassination of open source advocates. Again, if you had bolstered it with sufficient facts and citations, it’s possible even that character assassination would be warranted. But you didn’t.
LikeLike
@Mark Murphay
Thank you for your response. I actually pretty much agree with you. I guess my wording generalized “open source advocates” too much. I’m okay for yelling and screaming when things licenses and rights are abused. I truly support open source and if a company was abusing it in some way, I’d be yelling and screaming too.
My whole issue is with some open source advocates is the double standard they carry. I know many open source advocates who focus their ‘campaign’ on showing how FOSS is a logical choice for correct scenarios. I met with a Jimmy Guerrero from Sun who basically was the “open source advocate” for MySQL, and he was very passionate, but he focused on MySQL being a totally logical choice. I really support these types of ‘campaigns’ because they are focused on the better choice for a situation and don’t require placing a stigma of “evil” on the other choices.
I totally agree. Once again, throughout my entry I over generalized terms and honestly intended this post to be for a specific “type” of advocate and user.
I’m sorry that this article gave you this impressions. It honestly wasn’t my intention. I won’t put “percentage” on how many open source advocates I think act this way, but it definitely is not the majority. There are many professional open source advocates who I think “get it.” They focus on their product being better for different situations. They don’t bring in the “morality of proprietary software” into the debate, because at the end of the day, it doesn’t matter: proprietary software companies are not going away. Instead they accept the fact that if people are going to use their open source software, it had better be good and better fit for the scenario.
Once again thanks for the reply, and sorry that this article have you an impression I honestly did not intend.
LikeLike
You lost your argument when you based it entirely on the “it’s about choice!” bit. FOSS is certainly partly about choice, and having options to proprietary solutions, but it’s mostly about freedom. If the advocates to which you refer are only ranting about choice, then I submit to you that they’re missing the point.
For me, I think the important thing is making *conscious* choices in the software we choose to use. If people weigh the options in a particular instance and choose consciously to give up freedom in return for convenience, then fine, at least they thought through their decision. If, however, people choose proprietary solutions because of some misplaced idea that they’re “better,” or they blindly use Windows just because it’s what was pre-installed on their computer, then that’s where I start to take issue. At that point they aren’t making a choice, they’re just not thinking at all.
I think it’s great if you think by giving Microsoft money that will improve their product. More power to you. I give plenty of open source projects money and time here and there for the same reasons. I just think such a small percentage of your Windows license fees actually go towards improving the product that if you think that’s actually making any difference whatsoever in the quality of what MS is doing with Windows (c.f. Vista), then it’s a dubious argument in my opinion.
But not to get off on a tangent. FOSS is about choice, and it’s about freedom. But if people don’t consciously choose after weighing all their options, then they aren’t really choosing at all.
LikeLike
I apologize if I came across too harsh in my original comment. To me, your post read like any number of other “freetard” posts that I run into.
They certainly exist. The “big kahunas” of the Free Software and open source movements, I find, tend to be fairly self-consistent in beliefs and actions. But, there are any number who miss out on the philosophy and do (or espouse) hypocritical actions.
This sounds like less a concern about “hypocrisy”, though, and more of a concern about Free Software in general. Leastways, I run into “morality of proprietary software” more with Free Software advocates than pure-play open source advocates, since non-Free open source licenses tend to be amenable to proprietary uses and extensions.
LikeLike
Good question. Why are some FLOSS hypocrites, such as Bruce Perens?
Some GPL advocates have no problem with proprietary licenses, just as long as they are the ones doing it, or if they have some “GPL success story” from dual-licensers, such as a MySQL (has a GPL version and sells you a license).
Stallman perhaps could waste sometime asking around for the source code of some Real Time Linux systems, such as SuSE’s, that no one can find.
LikeLike
“Some”? SOME? How about “most, if not all”? Also, add “lack of inter-personal/social skills”, “lack of vision”, “lack of leadership skills”, “lack of management skills”, “lack of understanding what real users are like”, and you are pretty near to description of 99.9% of the open source developers.
LikeLike
@Matt Woodward
I agree with you on educating non-linux users about linux. But you have some linux endeavors that strive for more than just education, they strive for conversion. An example that I can call to mind is Lindependence. I think it is a great idea, but I feel like some FOSS supporters have very unrealistic expectations. They are at a loss when people say “eh, that’s cool, but I prefer my computer.” I can relate due to there are something things (like being an extreme left-wing democrat) that I just can’t comprehend.
Its when people after “loosing the battle” for FOSS for a particular scenario revert to juvenile tactics that bothers me. But I guess I shouldn’t be surprise because that doesn’t just apply to FOSS, but practically anything in this world.
LikeLike
@rawsausage
Well, at least you gave a great example at how the “other side” is capable of the same juvenile tactics. I feel like you’ve overly exaggerated your point.
However, I will agree with your on one point: “lack of understanding what real users are like.”
That isn’t a challenge just for FOSS, but any software developer. The ability to program requires certain mental abilities and sets a programmer apart from a “normal, real user.” Even linux users are far from being a “normal user.”
However, this does put FOSS at a disadvantage. FOSS is based on the collaborative effort of it’s contributors. In a proprietary solution, a programmer can sit down a create a solution that makes sense to him, but is hard to follow for normal users. I’ve had that happen to me many times with my own software. However, the fact that if a program is not easily usable, and the competition is, the developers have to choices: 1) do nothing, make less money, maybe even go out of business or 2) spend the time and grueling effort to make things more user friendly.
#2 sucks, because it is a lot of work that usually isn’t very gratifying for developers. We like doing “cool” stuff that interests us, not hashing over and over the same things trying to make things more usable. We think they are usable because it makes sense to us.
FOSS’s disadvantage is that it is a much greater challenge to go through #2 if you’re donating time. I personally worked on free projects and the challenge of usability is tough. It takes a lot of discipline and desire to make things easier for “normal users.” However no one is pressuring the developers to make it more usable. They could just not care and do things that they enjoy. I think some FOSS projects suffer greatly because they are good enough for the average linux user, but not easy enough for the average windows user.
Once again, there are some really great FOSS projects like Ubuntu and FireFox that are really making headway on usability. It is just there are lots that aren’t because that isn’t their focus. (Heck, Windows needs lessons too in usability.)
LikeLike
I have had a few discussions with Richard Stallman. He told me that to preserve the freedom of running FOSS, I would have to reject commercial, closed sourced, proprietary software. So I asked him, “In other words, to be free to choose, I have to limit my freedom to choose?” He said, “Yes.”
Sorry, but that just makes no sense to me. Free to choose should mean free to choose among all viable options.
When I ran Linux and FOSS, I felt “the community” was as restrictive as to how they wanted me to use their software as M$ was. One used guilt, the other licensing, and then with the GLP3, I even saw FOSS moving towards using the licensing more.
Needless to say, I’m a happy Mac user today. I pay a fair price for software, and it runs great, and they don’t lay guilt trips or religion on me. Yes I pay, just like I do for my house, car, when I buy a movie ticket, go out to dinner, hire a babysitter, get my hair cut, etc. I’m happier now.
The two best FOSS projects are Firefox and Open Office, both of which were built and paid for largely by commercial companies (Sun and AOL).
You get what you pay for.
I would never limit other’s freedom to choose any “software religion” they want. Just please don’t try to limit mine, even it it’s through a feeling of superiority.
Kevin
LikeLike
Yes, because those comments in that forum represent ALL OPEN SOURCE ADVOCATES, just as ANY comments posted here represent ALL CLOSED SOURCE ADVOCATES like you.
LikeLike
Surely you mean Sun and Mozilla (Netscape).
LikeLike
@Kevin
You made the classic mistake my friend. Free is as in freedom, not as free in beer.
LikeLike
Justin: s/bellow/below/
“all your possession must be Apple approved”
Umh … my Mac runs pretty much all of the software I’d be running under Linux. None of which is “Apple approved.” It works with my MS mouse and my non-Apple media players and my non-Apple audio interface and my non-Apple DVD burner and whatnot.
“Recompiling iTunes for another *nix kernel would be trivial.”
Yeah, right. As long as you’ve got a version of Mac OS X running on that kernel already. OK, let’s assume that commenter meant “… for another OS”. Now, it would really be trivial. As long as that other OS already has Carbon.
“i have download the os 10.5 patch myself along with a copy of os 10.5 […] once i buy a piece of software i will do whatever i want with it.”
Yep, and same goes for software you haven’t bought.
These quotes are idiotic. Their authors are Open Source advocates in the way/sense in which NAMBLA members are children’s rights advocates. Of course they’re hypocrites, but their opinion simply doesn’t matter and it’s unfair to portray them as tainting the movement they pretend to support.
LikeLike
@HC
Did he? I think we all understand the point that FOSS is free as in freedom. But non-funded FOSS has no one with their best interest to make a fantastic user down to grandma’s and the computer illiterate.
A project with funding (like FireFox, OpenOffice, Ubuntu, etc) are typically more reliable and easier to use. However, projects with no funding have no reason for quality control other than # of downloads. After awhile, developers for non-funded projects can get tired and worn out. The drive can just slowly fade away. I really believe non-funded projects don’t make progress nearly as fast.
LikeLike
Apple sucks ass.
LikeLike
There is no double standard here. The Free Software Movement has never thought that all licenses should get equal respect. What they think is that those who support copyright laws should not be able to break their own rules. End of story.
LikeLike
You can have any software you like, so long as it’s FOSS. Otherwise you’re a heathen terrorist moron.
LikeLike
You are not wrong or evil, you are just stupid. Nothing wrong with that, I make a living from stupid people. I help people which wreck their windows or macox and I do that a lot because unix I install once and then after five years I throw the installation away because the system is too old.
What is the most used software today?
Browser
Mail
Office
Mediaplayer
What is the best software for the job?
Firefox
Thunderbird
Openoffice
VLC
Why exactly should I run those on MacOx?
LikeLike
Kevin
Of course recently the strong FSF adherents don’t believe you should have to pay to see a movie either.
All
Great thread
LikeLike
@Crass Spektakel
You’re right, if I wanted a secondary PC around the house for just the basics, linux would work for me. However, hrm, what about for my main machine?
Programs That Won’t Work With Linux:
Ventrilo
xcode
Visual Studio 2008
Microsoft Office (I’m going to call BS on the OpenOffice being the best. While its good for free, I feel much more productive with Office 07)
Mail.app (I use Thunderbird on my main machine, but Mail.app is by far better than Thunderbird. The search and indexing alone is very good. Usually when I can’t find an email on Thunderbird or Outlook, I use Mail.app and find it very quick.)
Any Fun Video Game
Photoshop (sorry, but I like the interface better with Photoshop than gimp)
Dreamweaver (who else am I going to use? nvu? Please)
Flash Pro (I know I can view flash on linux, but not create flash movies)
The list goes on and on after that. I use a lot of open source products day to day, but I need Windows and OS X to run the programs I make a living with. I can make enough in one day to pay for my windows license easy. Plus having an OS that all the major software vendors design for is nice.
I’m also going to call your bluff on this one. I’ve had many friends “go linux” before. I can tell you exactly what happens:
1) The install an OS
2) They like it for like 2-3 discovering new things and playing around with it
3) They realize all the other distros out there and re-install a few more to check them out.
4) They spend days trying out tricks and tips on how to do “cool” things with Ubuntu, Fedora, Linux Mint, or which ever distro.
5) After they have their fill of customizing and tweaking their OS, they spend a day actually using it.
6) They get bored of not being able to do all the things they used to and re-install windows.
I have had a dozen friends do this. I even have a friend who goes through the cycle about every 2-3 months. He loves just tinkering, but eventually returns to windows. I’ve never had a virus problem with vista. I’ve never had a performance problem with vista. I have had problems getting linux to work on my powerful machines. The only time you install linux once and leave it is with servers. I love linux for servers. I don’t care for it for my primary desktop.
So you can call me stupid all you want, but being able to do everything I do, compared to being limited to what linux desktop can do, Linux doesn’t make sense.
LikeLike
“business principles don’t line up with mine.”
Translation: “business principles don’t line up with the rest of the world.”
They get bored of not being able to do all the things they used to and re-install windows
Translation: They get bored of being in a productive well built environment, and are unable to play the latest gamez.
So you can call me stupid all you want, but being able to do everything I do, compared to being limited to what linux desktop can do, Linux doesn’t make sense.
Translation: I am actually stupid. Ignore me.
It is a total crime for a business to abuse open source licenses, however its okay to for users to abuse business’s licenses.
Translation: It’s okay for mike tyson to beat up a baby, but its not okay if the baby bleeds on him.
Your taking the wrong side of the David vs. Goliath argument and your being on the counter productive side of the argument. Open source advocates are being hurt by the fact that many of them are forced to use Windows/Mac at work. Now that may not be such a hassle for you, writing this rather biased blog, but for people who truly try to change the world it makes a difference. It’s not “your choice” that’s making open source advocates sour, but rather the effect that your choice contributes to robbing everyone else of theirs.
I do think that users should become attracted by free software, and not forced into it, but in the bigger picture there are a great number of users that don’t choose at all, because they don’t know that they can.
You may think thats okay for them, but the truth is that many of them are suffering under license fees which they cannot actually afford.
What people like you do is write a pointless blog about how OSS is insufficient for their needs but you don’t go to the relevent project’s pages and give feedback about what you want in that software and how it can be improved for you. Open source is alot like having your own personal programmer, granted that there is enough interest in your specific need.
I guess if you were a little quicker on the uptake you would know that W3c has an HTML editor that works on Linux(Amaya). Krita looks like a promising photo editor, Open office is not the only office suite anymore(Lotus Symphony, KOffice)
The ability to program requires certain mental abilities and sets a programmer apart from a “normal, real user.”
Not all programmers are good at user interface design, but thats an inexcusable generilasation. Many of my interface designs have been applauded for usability, contextual help/consistebcy/good validation etc… Also saying that programmers don’t know what real users want is bullshit. OSS Programmers start any application for themselves, from the perspective of a user.
Stallman is an insane zealot and so are all his hardcore followers, but that doesn’t give you a right to bash OSS. I actually think you should be charged for software, because you don’t deserve to get it for free.
LikeLike
@Yeti
Wow, did you read my blog post and comments, or skimmed and assumed?
I love OSS for when it is practical. I’ve contributed to open source projects, I’ve given feedback, I’ve helped with bugs, and the list goes on. What I hate is the “all or nothing” approach many people take. “Either you use all FOSS or you’re ignorant.” If you would have read the entire blog entry you would have notices several occasions where I praise FOSS and what it does. My whole blog post was not how “FOSS sucks” but the type of users you are.
You read my post and start to insult my intelligence because that is your only argument: ‘Since you don’t use FOSS, you must be ignorant and stupid.’ Trust me, I’ve probably used Linux and other FOSS software. I’ve probably have spent a lot more time than you probably have given me credit. I have lots of open source software right now on my windows machine because it makes my life better.
I do think that users should become attracted by free software, and not forced into it, but in the bigger picture there are a great number of users that don’t choose at all, because they don’t know that they can.
I’m all for educating users. I just find it funny that when someone shows me Open Office, or any other free office suite, and they have this feeling of betrayal when I say “I’ll stick with Microsoft Office.”
Given your example of Amaya, I downloaded it and tried it out. It was pretty good, I was actually impressed, but it didn’t have intellisense for CSS, which is a deal breaker for me. I didn’t care for the interface much either, which is a personal preference.
Now, if I was the type of FOSS user that I’m talking about in this blog entry, except I was pro-proprietary software, I would ensue to explain how you are ignorant for using Amaya instead of Dreamweaver for the lack of features, poor interface, etc. But no, I don’t do that because that is just stupid. If someone likes Amaya, then use Amaya. If someone likes Dreamweaver, use Dreamweaver. Bother users can be educated about the existence of each other, but one user being fan boyish and bashing the other just because of their personal beliefs and preferences is pointless.
What people like you do is write a pointless blog about how OSS is insufficient for their needs but you don’t go to the relevent project’s pages and give feedback about what you want in that software and how it can be improved for you. Open source is alot like having your own personal programmer, granted that there is enough interest in your specific need.
Correction: some OSS solutions don’t meet my needs. There is a big difference. If I want to pay for a better solution for my personal preferences and needs, then its like having my own personal programmer. Only I pay them to ensure quality.
I’m not going to spend anymore time replying to your comments. I don’t feel like wasting the time.
LikeLike
Wow, did you read my blog post and comments, or skimmed and assumed?
Yes. But I’m not so sure you did.
“Either you use all FOSS or you’re ignorant.”
People like that should be shot, along with people who write negative garbage on their blogs.
I just find it funny that when someone shows me Open Office, or any other free office suite, and they have this feeling of betrayal when I say “I’ll stick with Microsoft Office.”
Office 2007 is much better than Open office without question or doubt. I will continue to use OpenOffice at home simply because I can’t afford Word, and even though it’s a good product it’s made by a company with extremely questionable business practices, so by principal I will never pay a cent for it.
You can also say what you want about OSS fanatics, but alot of them have churned out some excellent software(that judging by your comments, you may be using). If only for that, you owe them some respect, instead of lumping them in with people who make half assed comments on articles about Mac clones written by pea brained journalists who suddenly gave way to objectivity because now they have “blogs”.
LikeLike
The FOSS community can be scary. IMO, the BSD crowd is the most honest of any software writing organization/company/foundation in its goals and how free they actually are.
@Yeti – MS Office Home and Student 2007 can be had for ~ $90 for a three license copy. Granted, I’d rather it be cheaper, but I don’t use office software too much (and thus don’t use MS Office or Open Office much if at all).
LikeLike
Weight Loss Pills, weight loss program, quick weight loss, stay fit…
weight loss tips
LikeLike