please do further reading on what I've written... btw I know that. ;)
FREE as in FREEDOM, not FREE COFFEE. Even though, it most often is FREE COFFEE. Why do we pay for Logan's music? Because it is good, creative, and a labor of love. Voltaire said, "when an artist creates something out of passion, we admire the artist as the ontology for the art. But when he does it for profit, or out of market compulsion, then we admire the art but despise what the artist has become."
We SHOULD pay for open source software, when we can (and yes we Quain) because:
- That helps, in what little way it does, to keep the maker free of market compulsiion.
- It is a small token of appreciation for the maker.
- Even though there's a price, that price is paid in acknowledgment of the fact that product is free of top-down corporate dictate. We can still change it, and having changed it, if we so choose, make our version FREE as in FREE COFFEE if we so choose.
@Logan was a little off in this case, but I would think he probably did not mean it the way people are taking it. Given what he has said about FOSS in various episodes of The Tek, there is no objective reason to assume malice here.
1 Like
The idea of being behind open source is what logan was talking about. However as much as he'd like to run linux, he's going to have to buy the superior product to get his job done. Did you not watch the video?
Also
Really? Pretty sure the adobe Devs are getting paid as he's using and paying for their product. While saying that if a competitor has a superior product he will switch to it.
That is an excellent question.
This is an excellent answer
Great point. I don't pay for software period either way. Even when I ran Windows as a daily driver the most commercial thing I used was Steam. That's really it.
1 Like
I donate at least $150 a year to open source projects I use or like. If I had to buy a copy of say arch, gentoo or virtualbox I wouldn't hesitate a second.(note: referring to non commercial use in the case of virtualbox)
This thread confuses me deeply.
1 Like
I agree. I love the idea of free software, but I think paid software has its place as well. I dislike proprietary software, especially subscription-based stuff (hmmm....seems like there's a big company that makes creative software who uses this business model...ring any bells?) but I'll use it if it's the only option. I don't really mind paying for software if it's worth my money, in fact I'd rather have the option to pay for something than have it spy on me all the time (cough cough, CHROME, cough cough)
1 Like
I think you were misunderstanding my sarcasm or something. I'm not being defensive. I'm on the attack. I don't want anyone calling me a hypocrite when I'm not. I'm not being a victim. I'm setting things straight. People keep recommending free software to me and some paid software like Lightworks. I do not like Lightworks. Maybe that is where this is coming from..? I refuse to pay for Lightworks because it's not good for me. I'd rather pay for Premiere. I'm still at a loss and have no idea what you are getting at. I think we are on the same side of this argument and you have just misunderstood me.
6 Likes
I am with you. @Logan probably did not mean what people took him to mean, and he has always said he is on the right side of the FOSS battlefield. But I am interested in finding out what @08a310d0a6cdb86c2649b5425d92c6e6 is claiming regarding accounts being banned. Unless justifiable reasons exist, this is an unpardonable offence and it is imposing limits on the range of "acceptable" free speech. Which is frankly more dangerous than outright censorship, because it creates the illusion of freedom, while in fact restricting and limiting the same.
Your account was banned? If that is true, and IFF that wasn't in relation to something else you did that crossed a line, then I am with you... it is UNACCEPTABLE. Do keep us updated on what you find out about the ban... if they don't have a justifiable (justifiable from your point of view, since authority was used against YOU, and not theirs) then I can say two things -- 1. This is definitely NOT a "syndicate", and 2. Time has come for me to move on and find something else. Moderated authoritarian zones of control are no place for an anarcho-syndicalist. My sympathies for you over this incident.
1 Like
I don't quite agree with you here. The OP did not lie, even if Logan was misunderstood. Logan said something, and the exact quote was picked up (in fact, I remember him saying it, not that he has denied that, and now that I think of it I was a little struck by the oddity of it too) and discussed. No vile language was used, no ad hominem attacks were made. It was the mindset that was criticized, and while Logan has sufficiently made it clear that what was inferred was not what he implied, had he implied that then that mindset would be nothing but retarded. Logan is not above criticism, nor am I, or you, or the OP, or anybody else for that matter. You are being too defensive....
I'm surprised your account was banned. I'm definitely not for the wording you used, theres better ways to make that point, but a friendly PM would have been effective here, not a banning.
Looks like its a suspension rather than a ban.
This user is suspended until November 22, 2015 3:03am.
Reason: Common Case of Asshattery
I don't agree that it was the right course of action in this case.
@Ohban this first post is clear that his phrasing is not targeted at logan, rather they mindset of not paying for software on linux. Regardless that his conclusions of logans wording being wrong, this entire topic he has kept to the point in the general mindset, not specific people.
Logans wording was indeed hard to decipher what he actual meant, and likewise @08a310d0a6cdb86c2649b5425d92c6e6's misunderstanding was corrected but he was suspended before even being allowed to reply to @Logan. Which is a shame as he clearly understood the misunderstanding after logan replied.
I dont think he was suspended for saying retarded "Common Case of Asshattery" doesnt come under that. Which begs the question, as this topic, though with some misunderstandings was generally productive and brought some very good discussions on the case of paying for Free Software. Why was he suspended?
My discomfort increases with this. "Asshattery" is not a justifiable explanation. Sounds more like "moderators" trying to impose authority the only way they can. I will be interested in if a proper offence can be cited and shown to the community, or in lieu of that an apology is issued to the victim. Anything less is unacceptable.
@Eden @biolinguist @08a310d0a6cdb86c2649b5425d92c6e6 look at this one here: https://forum.teksyndicate.com/t/why-would-i-pay-for-a-program-on-linux/91365/43?u=ohban. I just wanted to make clear that the beginning of this topic is not clear enough - if you want, you can find the implication I've seen - of course I believe you, that this also was just a misunderstanding and not intended to attack Logan but I guess Logan and NJM1112 have seen that implication and therefore you got your ban.
How is that anything but arbitrary? NJM1112 is the one committing asshattery here. (@NJM1112, go ahead ban me if you dare, and see if I give a damn). The OP was talking about FOSS developers getting paid for some high-end software, and NJM1112 and his arbitrary asshattery somehow tries to justify that by talking about a money-sucking corporate clump like Adobe and whether or not they get paid! What a pile of shit! And this dude has the gall to talk about others being asshats, while he is acting like the biggest asshat around.
Don't worry man, you are on the right here. The moderator is the one committing arbitrary asshattery here. I am with you! You MUST get your apology.
Once again, I must point out the logical inconsistency here. The OP did NOT say "Logan is retarded". He said that a particular mindset, which he probably misunderstood as Logan's, is retarded. Which it is. It represents a half-baked logic. Now, that it is not Logan's mindset is beyond doubt. But just as the OP misunderstood Logan, this "overlord" misunderstood the OP. The difference is one person exercised authority, the other did not. There is an encyclopedia's worth of historical precedence that I could cite to prove conclusively, provided one wants to evaluate evidence, who is committing "common case of asshattery" here.