On Monday 29 April 2002 08:19, MJ Ray wrote:
<beard-and-wild-eyes>This kind of defeats the point if you are trying to escape from the world of proprietary software. Being owned by a software house is still being owned, no matter which one it is.</beard-and-wild-eyes>
That's were we differ them :o)
I don't care about software being closed source unless it's running on a mission critical system, It's always nice to have the source but it's not always a factor in the choices I make (espicially with desktop apps, I'm far too busy to spend time fixing them).
I don't mind paying for software if it's good for the job and reasonably priced with a licensing agreement that means that I can actually use it without breaking the law.
Being owned by a software house is no worse than being owned by the Manufactuer of your Car (to supply you with spare parts) Award (or whoever wrote the software in your Bios) or Coca Cola (the ingredents list on the back of the can is NOT the same as source code :o) )
It's nice to at least have choices though, which for me is what Linux is all about.
You accept all these things (unless you make your own beverages and drive a kit car) how is Software different ?
I'm not saying it isn't, I just don't understand how.
Now proprietary closed file formats....that's a different matter