Best way to present Trisquel to people
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios
Not sure how to go about it, and I don't want to leave a bad impression on people. In the future I hope to sell some computers with Trisquel or another fully free distro. So, what are some things I can speak on while presenting it?
I can explain libre/free software to an extent, the usability aspects, and the point of it being gratis/free as in cost. Surely there isn't a perfect advertising formula, but what can I tell people so they get the idea/heart behind the OS and why it would be beneficial for them to use?
Looking for all sorts of answers, thanks everyone.
P.s: If this was already asked, my apologies, tried searching for similar topics.
I came across this the other day. It isn't really Trisquel-specific, though. It's just a set of do's and don't's for discussing free software with people. Still, it might be useful. https://fsfe.org/freesoftware/basics/effective-advocacy.en.html
You can take a look at RMS' videos about Free software (those about the copyright or the software patents are very interesting but out of the scope of what you ask): http://audio-video.gnu.org
In the end, the main point is the very definition of what freedoms every user deserves: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Also stress that Trisquel is pro Free Software not anti Non Free Software. I've seen GNU/Linux distros who spend a lot of time telling me why non free software is evil rather than showing me how Free Software can benefit me. Trisquel does the latter and that's one reason why it's such a welcoming distro.
It works 100%. No viruses. Completely UNIX-like. And always free.
Of course, it's up to you if you want to "support" them.
I am a member!
In my opinion, the average non-linux user could care less where the software came from, who made it, who owns it, or how much it costs. The average user cares about weather or not a program will work and if their hardware is compatible.
In addition people are afraid of change so most will be reluctant to make the switch, especially to an 100% Libre distro which poses a few extra challenges (especially when it comes to wifi, etc).
This reluctance to change is a problem that many distributions face in getting more users. I would even venture to say that this is precisely the reason why many distributions are not 100% libre, they are willing to bend a couple of morals, include a couple of proprietary drivers, blobs, and programs, for the sake of usability.
I am not a radical anti-nonfree software advocate. But I choose to use only free software for personal reasons, and encourage others to do the same.
My point is, at the end of the day Trisquel is a hard sell for people who are new to GNU/Linux, and it is even a hard sell for people who are veterans of GNU/Linux. I think Trisquel sells itself. There is truly a feeling of Liberation in knowing that you are able to use a computer without any constraints on it. That is why I use it.
Part of the challenge of presenting free software to people is trying to get them to care about the social and ethical issues behind it, things they've probably never thought about before.
On 22/09/11 23:16, name at domain wrote:
> Part of the challenge of presenting free software to people is trying
> to get them to care about the social and ethical issues behind it,
> things they've probably never thought about before.
>
I think this is the best answer. If you convince people based on the
functionality issues. They will change when they get more functionality
on a privative distro.
If you use the freedom issue to justify the functionality and price,
then it might be good but if you do not put the freedom issue up front,
you might loose them somehow.
My personal experience for good sales is to be a good profesional and
never accept to install non-free software unless you are absolutely sure
that they will move to 100% free software if you install that nonfree
bit. This is seldom true so doubt about it always.
--
Quiliro Ordóñez
09 821 8696
02 340 1517
"No se puede sacrificar la libertad por ningún bien, por ninguna promesa
de pan o de paz o de justicia, porque ese pan tendría amargura de
veneno, esa paz sería de muerte, y esa justicia no sería justicia humana
ni tendría sentido." Alfredo Pérez Guerrero
"Não se pode sacrificar a liberdade por nenhum bem, por nenhuma promessa
de pan ou de paz ou de justiça, porque esse pan teria amargura de
veneno, essa paz seria de morte, e essa justiça não seria justiça humana
nem faria sentido." Alfredo Pérez Guerrero
Agreed. But I would also like to suggest people don't get drawn into
the trap of letting others compare 'all potential function loss'
against their freedoms. In the days of yore M$ tried to make the
functionality argument against GNU/Linux. I've recently had the same
argument made [Nth-hand] by 'consumer grade users' about a switch from
W$. The same method applies 'What do you actually use the computer
for?' then intelligently go into detail.
Speaking personally from my experience of changing to Trisquel two
things I do regularly have become slightly less convenient, that is
all. The 'consumer grade user' friend's I help/support have noticed
nothing but a change in the GUI cosmetics. I knew they wouldn't
because I know their useage profile.
Maybe a 'function-head' won't go for the freedom choices when it is
against all the possible loss in function, but if it comes down to
'those last few things you actually do or your freedoms' they'll be
more inclined to make a freedom choice. Afterwards - well it is
always harder to give up freedoms you have chosen, making the decision
once for freedom makes it easier to make the same decision again when
there is more pressure.
Leny / Andrew
On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 09:18:56 -0500
Quiliro Ordóñez <name at domain> wrote:
> On 22/09/11 23:16, name at domain wrote:
> > Part of the challenge of presenting free software to people is
> > trying to get them to care about the social and ethical issues
> > behind it, things they've probably never thought about before.
> >
>
> I think this is the best answer. If you convince people based on the
> functionality issues. They will change when they get more
> functionality on a privative distro.
>
> If you use the freedom issue to justify the functionality and price,
> then it might be good but if you do not put the freedom issue up
> front, you might loose them somehow.
>
> My personal experience for good sales is to be a good profesional and
> never accept to install non-free software unless you are absolutely
> sure that they will move to 100% free software if you install that
> nonfree bit. This is seldom true so doubt about it always.
>
M$ = Microsoft
W$ = Microsoft Windows
also
A$ = Apple
I$ = IBM
Read them as also saying 'Their proprietary code is a worse deal than
buying an 8-bit computer today.'
Leny / Andrew
On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 00:32:46 +0200 (CEST)
name at domain wrote:
> What is W$?
My brother, who is far from a computer expert, got a laptop from someone for his schoolwork a few weeks ago and asked me to wipe it clean and start over. I booted live CDs of various distros and put Trisquel 4.1 LTS and Ubuntu 11.04 side by side with him picking the look of Trisquel. I wanted to go with an LTS version so I wouldn't have to do an OS upgrade for a few years and supplemented it with Launchpad PPAs of free software. I needed the stability of an LTS for the core system while having updated versions of frequently used programs.
Thankfully the wireless card on this Dell was Broadcom so it used the b43 drivers from the Trisquel CD and once I was able to get online, everything fell into place. The default look of Trisquel, with the glass like panel at the bottom, made the transition easier from Windows Vista/7. Can't really say the same about Linux Mint, which I used to use and now feel the default theme is horribly ugly and outdated.
Plus with him using Firefox, a program he used on Windows, all his sites worked. I may have cheated with installing Adobe Flash, but that was the only non-free software I installed and until Gnash gets more mature, I may have to leave it on there. I haven't gotten any questions or complaints about the laptop yet.
On 23/09/11 13:14, name at domain wrote:
> I may have cheated with installing Adobe Flash, but that was the only
> non-free software I installed and until Gnash gets more mature, I may
> have to leave it on there.
I guess the best would be to use the new Trisquel 5.0 with a newer Gnash
or use the new Gnash on LTS. Then no freedom compromize is needed. It is
easier to not compromize freedom latter when no compromize has been made
before.
--
Quiliro Ordóñez
09 821 8696
02 340 1517
"No se puede sacrificar la libertad por ningún bien, por ninguna promesa
de pan o de paz o de justicia, porque ese pan tendría amargura de
veneno, esa paz sería de muerte, y esa justicia no sería justicia humana
ni tendría sentido." Alfredo Pérez Guerrero
"Não se pode sacrificar a liberdade por nenhum bem, por nenhuma promessa
de pan ou de paz ou de justiça, porque esse pan teria amargura de
veneno, essa paz seria de morte, e essa justiça não seria justiça humana
nem faria sentido." Alfredo Pérez Guerrero
Gnash will never be as functional as Adobe Flash Player, because Adobe
also develops and changes the flash format constantly, and doesn't
publish the specifications of the format. Because the format is a
secret, Gnash is developed using reverse engineering, which is a very
slow process. Even if after an year Gnash is written to be 100%
compatible with the current version of the format, Adobe would have
released several new versions by then, and Gnash will still be behind.
In a sense, Gnash will never be "mature".
As you've already said in your post, you want to tell people, " .... why it would be beneficial for them to use ...." That's exactly what to do. I believe software is just the same as selling anything else - sell the benefits.
Benefits are relative and vary depending on the needs of the person, target audience or market. For example, small business owners will expect something different from their software than home users, professionals something else and office workers something different again. So I would sell the benefits of the software, but not the benefits as I see it, but rather the benefits for the users, or group of users, I'm selling to.
In general, "selling benefits" need to be tangible and immediate. For example, I could say to a small business owner that Trisquel is free of restrictive licenses, proprietary software and formats. That's factual, positive and beneficial but it isn't a selling benefit, because it doesn't address a tangible and immediate need of that person.
In contrast, I could also say that Trisquel has no license fees regardless of the number of users, and that it comes with a complete suite of office applications at no extra charge. To a business person, those are selling benefits, because they address real and relevant needs; the need to control costs and avoid additional expenditure.
I hope this helps. Good luck with your venture.
I'd love to know how works out for you.
I think the only proper way to present Trisquel to other people is to
tell them why you use it. If you use it because how secure, stable, how
much money you save with it, or how beautiful it looks, then tell them
about that. If you use it because of the social and moral issues, then
tell them about those.
This way to presenting Trisquel isn't directly related with the system
or the idea of free software, it's just the honest way of presenting
anything to others. Personally, I would prefer if more people talk
about the social and moral issues, but I don't want those to be used,
if the given person doesn't care much about them, and only uses them as
sort of a marketing ploy – that would be dishonest. If the person
doesn't care much about the moral and social issues, then he should talk
about his other reasons for using Trisquel.
I am a member!
You should emphasize that free software gives the user control over their computer, and that free software does not carry the same restrictions that non-free software (you might want to call non-free software something like "licensed software" to explain that the user is only licensed to use it, and that they do not actually have ownership over their copy). Emphasize that they are fully within their rights to download more software and share it with friends, family, and neighbors, while noting that non-free software doesn't allow you to.
Don't use the "Microsoft/Apple/etc are evil" line too much, but it might be helpful to compare the GNU GPL to a standard Microsoft software license to emphasize the difference. See this http://asyd.net/docs/misc/comparing_the_gpl_to_eula.pdf which has a verbatim distribution license.
Since you are selling it preinstalled on computers, hardware issues will be moot. You can also, if need be, sell wifi cards, printers, and other additional free-software-compatible hardware so that they get a true 100% free experience.
You are not just selling Trisquel, you are selling the free software movement.
Regarding Adobe Flash, I don't own any rights to the video streaming on Youtube or ESPN. I don't own the rights to the movie streaming on Netflix nor do I have the rights to the TV show streaming on Hulu or MTV. Legally, I just have a temporary license to view that content at that point in time. They will never be in .mp4 or .ogv or .webm because it would be easy to save, copy to others, and the copyright holders would lose money.
That's why it is not such a big deal with Adobe Flash playing proprietary video formats because most of the time, the video being streamed doesn't belong to me. It doesn't belong to you either. Most of you should get over it and either use Flash player or ignore a huge portion of what makes the web great.
I am a member!
What makes the web great is that it is not controlled by a single company, organization, individual, or government. What makes the web great is that it is not tied to any specific technology. What makes the web great is that it makes no assumptions about what kind of software is available on a user's computer, or the computing power of said computer. What makes the web great is that the specifications that define it are free both freedom-wise and cost-wise.
This is what is fundamental and revolutionary about the web and about the Internet. It is what allowed them to become the very backbones of global communication.
I am sorry, but Adobe Flash, and websites based on Adobe Flash, break every one of these fundamental points about the web. That Hulu cannot survive in an environment where users and giant entertainment companies are on equal footing is a fault of Hulu's, not of the web.
I would love to either live in the cave that you came from or time travel back to 1995. Apparently your world negates the need for any interactive video or audio. It negates the need for a company to protect their code and not give an edge to their competitors. Have you seen all of the Groupon copycats? Its sad that nobody has original ideas and has to copy everyone. It is a copycat world and having stronger ways to protect your content helps.
Hey I get the need to have things related to education being open because that is our human right to know about the world. But saying that a company is not allowed to protect their content that they spent many hours working on is total bullshit.
Oh btw you seem to forget that H264 and your holy WebM are not patent free (http://arstechnica.com/web/news/2011/01/googles-dropping-h264-from-chrome-a-step-backward-for-openness.ars). I guess you will have to continue to live in an internet world in a small corner with your eyes closed and ears shut because you hate capitalism.
On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 00:20:07 +0200 (CEST)
name at domain wrote:
> I guess you will have to continue to live in an internet world in a
> small corner with your eyes closed and ears shut because you hate
> capitalism.
As a capitalist I reject interfering with the free market by creating
false monopolies. The copyright / Digital Restrictions Management
regime restricts an activity that has a capital cost that is so low
that all (in the West) but the destitute can afford the equipment and
a marginal cost of less than $0.01 . If Digital Restrictions
Management were _needed_ then box sets of aired TV shows would be an
absolute no go business proposition and that plainly is not the case.
Copyright is a solution to an industrial era problem, this is the 21st
century and it is no longer appropriate. Companies who are dependent
on artificial monopolies should be made to face the market without
assistance and shape up or ship out.
The companies should never be allowed to deny the user/public's rights. For software (and everything which aims at doing a work: cooking recipes, scholar manual, etc.), they should be (I believe) the four freedoms as defined here: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
For the sport games, music, videos and so on, the public does not really need to directly have the right to modify (but this right should come after a few years, not after 70 or even 90 years, because many artists made a great contribution to culture reusing previous pieces of art: Shakespeare, De La Fontaine, etc.). But the right to share its culture should never be denied.
Finally there are the works that engage the author politically (say a manifesto), scientifically (say a thesis) and so on. Again the public must have the rights to share those works. However they should never be modified.
This is RMS' opinion on copyright and I completely agree.
Finally, you are talking about patents and what has nothing to do with copyright. Contrary to H264, WebM aims at being patent-free and therefore raises less risks for people implementing or merely using this format. That said, it probably infringes many patents because any piece of software implements thousands of "ideas" and software patents are about patenting "ideas" (even trivial ones). They inhibit innovation (the whole objective of the patent law!) and should be abolished.
It is a shame that Dirac was never considered for video but I haven't come across anyone use it or mention it outside of technical documents. The problem is that it is still considered a work in progress and the current video quality is below that of H264.
So I'm guessing a video file in a MKV container with Dirac for video and Vorbis for audio is one of the more free software friendly ways to enjoy video? That is if someone made it popular.
There is no problem in using free players with free codecs to read a H264 video. Trisquel even ships that by default. The problem is you may not be able to do so in the future if patents are triggered and free software developers are prevented from implementing those formats. Therefore it is safer to not rely on patent-encumbered formats.
True, people can use Windows Media Player, Quicktime, or VLC to play local videos on their computer. My discussion is related to the codecs for the HTML5 video tag. I wish the VLC plugin for Mozilla was better because in the past I have tried it on Windows and there was no real way to navigate the video with an overlay or anything. If the world is moving to a Chromebook like mentality where everything done on a computer is in a browser, then plugins need to pick up the pace.
If the playback options of the VLC plugin got better, it would be nice down the road to install just the plugin and it would install the codecs recognized by the plugin without actually installing the full VLC. I actually thought this would be a great option like 3 years ago and maybe it still stands today? That way if the W3C standard or usage patterns change you have that new codec supported without installing something extra. Just update the plugin.
Of course some of you mentioned that just opening the .flv or .swf and playing the required codecs within is not enough considering the Actionscript hooks of proprietary Flash.
The video you watch from a Web browser is downloaded. So there is not much difference with playing it locally (and the most natural feature is to actually let the user save the video). So, really, I do not get what you mean by "Chromebook like mentality" (I assume you are referring to SaaS).
Mozilla Firefox (and its derivative such as Trisquel's default browser) is Free software and reads Ogg Theora and WebM videos (most of the content in the element of HTML5). W3C has not specified any codec to be used for video (WebM will win against H264 thanks to YouTube) and strictly has nothing to do with Flash.
In the way that Firefox stores cache files, can one simply right click a cache file and open with VLC? Maybe that can give some confidence to content providers in the future if the cache filetype and location are somewhat obscure to the average user. Maybe if media files are encrypted in the cache by the browser there won't be a need for a DRM system because the user cannot directly play them. That could mean that the method of playing them (whether its Theora or WebM) is an open standard but the actual content itself is protected.
Second, you talked about WebM vs H264 on YouTube but there is still more H264 content on there. I think that has to do with an earlier partnership with Apple to have YouTube support on the iPhone without using Flash.
If I understand correctly, you're proposing that a user's computer should deliberately try to hide information from them. That's an idea that I simply cannot support.
Isn't it already? If I open up my Home folder in Nautilus, I have to select "Show Hidden Files" to see my Firefox settings and cache in a hidden .mozilla folder. Digging around the Documents and Settings or AppData folders in Windows is pretty hidden as well for the average user.
If I dig around, I see random JPEG files with names like E2442d01 and of course I can open them directly. To the average user, they probably have no clue what it is because it doesn't say like "baby shower 001.jpg" and the same would go for a video file.
Say you were streaming a copyrighted movie in Firefox and the video was stored in the same cache folder as the HTML and JPEG files. True, the average user doesn't know where to look but if it was left unencrypted, what would stop the advanced computer user from taking that, renaming it, and sharing? The industry is already getting raped with pirated material on BitTorrent and Usenet, so giving another option to steal directly from the browser cache doesn't sound fun.
I am a member!
I'm sorry, but any suggestion that implies that software (especially free software) has an obligation to obscure anything from its user is going to be frowned upon. The point of the free software movement is to give so-called average users more control and knowledge over their computer.
As for your assertion that the poor defenseless (as if having the FBI and Homeland Security at their beck and call isn't enough) entertainment industry is being "raped" by the big bad "pirates" I'm not really an economic-minded person, but I don't see any rape going on. http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2011/industries/145/index.html
The images, audio files (with the eponymous element in HTML5) and video files (with the eponymous element in HTML5) can be save in two clicks from your Web browser. A cache is not meant to hide anything from anyone. It aims at speeding up your browsing experience.
And again, there are ways to make money without denying the users' fundamental freedoms such as the right to share your culture with your friends. You call them "pirates", I call them "good citizens". "Pirates" are on the sea and they are doing really bad stuffs such as stealing (people on the Net are not stealing, i.e., subtracting what another owns, they are sharing and copying).
Magic Banana said it all. Pirates are mean bad boys, not what you see in a Disney movie starring Johnny Depp. File-Sharers, well they want to spread the wealth.
One of the pillar of a society is its members sharing culture. Anyone should have the right to share its culture. DRMs deny this right, thus are ethically wrong. Using a software that denies the users freedom (the Adobe Flash player is even known for spying its users!) is ethically wrong too.
The pay-per-view or pay-per-copy model of the "content industry" does not make any economical sense when making a copy or having one more spectator does not cost anything. Streaming art or sport games is a useful activity and it would not die if it started to be done in an ethical way. If there really is no money to be made ethically from the spectators, I am sure the people organizing the stadiums (with advertisement around the field, and sits to fill) or the teams (selling merchandising, shirts for instance) would pay to be streamed! Actually they might even make more money in this way since the audience would be greater. Music/Video streaming websites have advertisement too. If people prefer to directly exchange their files (e.g., over P2P), then this business would die and that is OK. It simply means it became useless!
So you are a Communist? How about Anarchist Communist then? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_Communist
There is nothing wrong with sharing culture. We do it every day but the reality is that our culture has some copyright tied to it. The Disney movies you watch with your kids. The movie you see at the theatre on a date. The clothes you wear. The Coca Cola you drink. How about having to pay for college and the books that go along with it for the right to learn? Sure I can avoid college and read books or read online but I still have to buy the book or pay for internet access.
There is the idealism of things and there is the reality. Our culture needs money and copyright in order to create more so you can have stuff to talk about with your friends or to relax after work.
Writing that a company should fill a real need and that it should die otherwise is being communist?! I would say it is liberal...
Writing that a society should not prevent its citizen to share is being communist? I would say it is the basis of any society!
The copyright was originally created to protect the artists from the press industry. It was not meant to act against the readers (who could keep on copying books by hand). Today it is abused. And the "reality" of copyright, as you write, is changing and not in the good sense because people (like you?) let the large companies dictate the law (otherwise they say you are "communist"). For instance the "public domain" is something that is about to disappear because whenever Mickey is about to enter the public domain, Disney changes the law to extend the copyright term (it is 70 years after the death of every artist, it will soon become 90 years!). Some people even call the last extension (from 50 to 70 years) the "Mickey Mouse Protection Act": https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Sonny_Bono_Copyright_Term_Extension_Act
The law is to be hacked so that it becomes ethical. Making money by denying people's fundamental rights should never been allowed. Is that being communist?
If artists need more money for the art to thrive, a tax on Internet connection can be voted (of course, the not-for-profit exchanges on the Internet must be legalized before). It would be analog to paying taxes for public museums, libraries, etc... Hopefully, the collected money would be better distributed so that more artists earn a living (today, only the superstars are able to make a living). The tax payer could actually choose where the money goes, à la Flattr. Another option would be a redistribution based on popularity (if it is legal, I would be happy to have a Free software sending the list of what I read/listen/watch on my system) but not proportional. RMS, for instance, proposed the cubic root (an artist 1000 times more popular earns 10 times more money).
The comparisons you make with material goods do not make any sense: *every* shirt or a can of Coca-Cola costs money. Making a new "copy" costs money.
Material goods or not, the Coca-Cola formula is protected by copyright so they can protect their company. If Coca-Cola followed the FSF mentality of having it being totally free and open, their business model would be totally screwed because they would be giving away EVERYTHING about how it is made to the last possible detail.
Trust me, I know the copyright systems need to be revised but the reality is that it will not happen. Heck, when I started getting into programming for the web, I would have loved to have the details of SEO revealed to me. The reality is that the methods aren't fully revealed by Google and the companies that do SEO do not give back to anyone. I thought the concept of the web was to have everything open and to grow, but somehow SEO got a pass and the owners of said companies drive fancy cars and are rich. If their methods were common knowledge on Wikipedia would they still be rich?
Maybe the SEO thing is a bad analogy because there is a lot of money at stake with search engine results. Maybe the culture dictates the method and mentality much like how the culture of the FSF dictates the method and mentality. Either way there is a boss involved wanting its subordinates to follow that mentality whether it is your project manager boss or Richard Stallman. You also said you were a liberal so your viewpoints may be a little bit skewed towards your political party. The party that wants everyone to work for the government and for private businesses to be suppressed.
First of all, I am not following any party... especially not US ones (I am French and live in Brazil).
Then, you are mixing up everything. The FSF deals with software only. A piece of software does a job for you and the user should control the job the computer is achieving. That is the fundamental reason for the four freedoms that every software user deserves.
Drinking a soda or reading links on a Web page is not doing your work. I do not see the need to have the four freedoms in this case. To come back to your initial point, you can do whatever you want with your Coca-Cola or the Web page Google shows you. Coca-Cola or Google have not worked to restrict you in your usage of of the beverage or the list of links. No DRM.
I'm not following Richard Stallman or the FSF. I'm following the idea
of free software, among other ideas. Richard Stallman is nothing like a
boss, since there is no pressure to agree with him. For example, I'm
not going to loose my job and my means, if I disagree with him.
Having a discussion while comparing ideas like free software to
communism, capitalism or anarchism is pointless. None of those were
ever realized in reality, but people will choose to compare things using
historical or current very poor attempts at those. Also, wherever you
choose the real definitions of those social structures or use the
historical and current attempts, it's still a very narrow minded way of
judging a person.
Coca-Cola's formula is a trade secret and has nothing to do with
copyright. Anyway, keeping such things locked and secret is not a
contribution to society. And on another note, neither is a
contribution having a crushing marketing campaigns about a drink that's
bad for your health, or exploiting and murdering people. Coca-Cola
Company deserves to be screwed by all means.
When has Coca-Cola engaged in murder? I'm not accusing you of lying, but a source would be nice.
If Coca-Cola followed the FSF mentality of having it being totally free and open, their business model would be totally screwed because they would be giving away EVERYTHING about how it is made to the last possible detail.
I am pro individual employment, and not for corporations at all... Sure, their business model would be screwed, and yet society would benefit...
Remember, competition is a good thing, even business realize this to an extent. Most just try to control and monopolize this as well... As an uncle told me who ran a business, when people complain about the rates I charge, I politely remind them of the options of my competitors. When they respond with their service/goods are sub-standard quality, I politely remind them that is the breaks...
Trust me, I know the copyright systems need to be revised but the reality is that it will not happen.
Sure it will... it's called copyleft. ;)
I actually am on a mission to open source the world! Forget talking about what's wrong, lets live life right and others will follow.
On topic, here is something I came across that I found helpful with FOSS in general, along with a real world example of success.
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?s=33bad2187e9603c2620413d4726b1edd&t=865750
http://forum.linuxbasix.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=356&hilit=sharing+idea+telling+others
*Disclaimer, I am a regular contributor to LinuxBasix podcast. Anyone is invited into the community and/OR on the podcast/forums/IRC/Mumble voice chat. The more the merrier, and there are a GREAT bunch of guys there. Helped me realize there are cool people on the Internets that I can interact with regularly.
Excellent posts, thank you everyone. I've been busy with other things, so I wasn't able to read all the replies until recently.
My motives behind selling computers is gaining some sort of profit, and since my understanding of free software has grown greatly, I don't want to give people non-free OSes/software. I'm even hesitant to install a distro that isn't completely free. - Haven't gotten into this just yet, still been busy with various things, but I will attempt to apply what I've learned here in the near future.
Again, thank you.
Excellent posts, thank you everyone. I've been busy with other things, so I
wasn't able to read all the replies until recently.
My motives behind selling computers is gaining some sort of profit, and since
my understanding of free software has grown greatly, I don't want to give
people non-free OSes/software. I'm even hesitant to install a distro that
isn't completely free. - Haven't gotten into this just yet, still been busy
with various things, but I will attempt to apply what I've learned here in
the near future.
Again, thank you.
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios