Re: Close, but not quite (4.00 / 1) (#25)
by tnt on Fri Mar 23, 2001 at 11:15:59 AM EST
In reply to when I said
and even though the kernel that runs OSX is open source, it is not free (as in freedom) software. Many people want a
free (as in freedom) desktop environment, and OSX does not bring this.
You're part way there, but you're mostly wrong.
Most people don't give 2 cents about how free an operating system or desktop is. The majority of users in the world are on a Windows box. When you say 'many', you're right, but the word 'people' should not be misused when what you really mean is 'geek'.
You are correct, most people "don't give 2 cents about how free an operating system or desktop is". But I never said they did!!! As I've said before here, most people use Windows because it came with their computer. To them, it was free because it came with their computer (... they don't see or maybe care about the hidden costs). To them, the free, as in freedom, doesn't matter; to them, the free, as in free cake, matters.
And I do know that the word many is a subjective term; and the exact definition of many, when I use it, is defined by me (... and will still likely be different depending on the context in which I use it). Now, more than likely, this definition of many will be different from yours. But I don't see why you are nit-picking over that... I assumed everyone would see that as being pretty obvious.
Now, just to make things clear (as to what I mean by many) I do not mean just amoung the population of geeks*. I've encountered a concern about free (as in freedom) in other places too... namely I encountered it amoung the indie movie culture. This seems to be spured by their use of the GIMP. (I was actually surprised the first time I heared someone, from the indie movie culture, talk to me about the GIMP [... usually first asking me if I've ever heard about it...], and even talking to me about Linux sometimes, after they find out that I have a Comp Sci degree.)
You later said:
I think that OSX stands a chance with 'ordinary' users, *and* geeks. It has the interface that many users like and want, and it
has the power that many geeks can harness. Apple is shipping *all* the developer tools with it, too. When I was growing up,
the NeXT developer tools cost my Dad an effing arm and a leg. Free? For tools of that calibre? A bargain. And if you want
to write free software (free as in freedom), you can do that, too. OS X has something for everybody. And this time it looks like
it has enough to make both sides (users and geeks) happy, as opposed to being watered down all around, and making both
Agreed, OSX does stand a good chance with 'ordinary' users, *and* (as you call them) geeks. I for one have been interested in HCI, useability, and UI design/research so I have an interest in it, from that point of view too. (Not to mention that I think it looks cool.) Also, about the writing of free (as in freedom) software for OSX, I've been keeping that in mind -- other platforms besides Linux, like: OSX, Windows, etc -- with the free (as in freedom) I (and others) are working on. I have alot of (artist) friends that work exclusively on the Mac, and they have an interest in seeing free (as in freedom) software on it too. [For them, they don't see moving over to Linux as very free, when all the programs they already use, and already payed for are on Mac... or Windows.]
* This is a little of topic but I've always had a problem with this (relatively new) label of geek, being attributed to anyone with a Comp Sci background, or who can code. They define a geek as someone who is not-athletic, and who is socially awkward... and then for some reason attach this label to everyone with a Comp Sci background, or who can code.
I am extremely athletic (being a pro-athlete was one of the options I looked at when going to University) and have no problems in a social environment; yet because I'm educated in Comp Sci some people try to attach that label.
Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc.
Kuro5hin user #279
[ Parent ]