M Sasikumar wrote:
I understand the values of free software, open source and the so-called proprietary software. But I am not one to take a religious stand on these. If these are what we claim these are, then they are capable of finding their own defense. They do not need to be pushed down someone's throat, least of all, by general bashing and cribbing.
The fsf-friends mailing list exists to promote Free Software, and I guess most of us here have volunteered to contribute, without wasting time on needless prattle. It is rather strange that many are willing to swallow non-free software down their throats but raise objections to savouring free software freedom :)
Complaints, even if dubbed as bashing or cringing, help to remedy the malaise before more harm or damage is done. A majority assume that someone somewhere would be attending to these issues, but as it often turns out, none may be paying attention. Thank you very much for paying attention and I hope this interaction can help to bring in changes that may be of use to one and all.
We must understand that the growth in IT industry and the vast
number of
applications we see today are to a large part due to the so called proprietary software and the associated companies. Even the growth of good desktop environments on Linux came out of the need to counter Windows. Today, it is easy for someone to stand up and say "goto hell" to commercial institutions "selling" software. Remember that everything has its own place. Let us also not forget that FOSS movement itself caught on its momentum largely after big "commercial" industries started supporting it. It does not take a
lot of
research to figure out why they are doing this.
Many books like "Free For All" narrate the history of free software interestingly and give a clear picture about the co-operation between various institutions and entities. Negative pressure from certain commercial entities have helped to strengthen the resolve.
When I opted to use a computer for work, I dumped the manual typerwriter that I had been using for more than 10 years with a heavy heart, because it never let me down even once during its life time. The manual typewriter probably got recycled into a printer and got a fresh lease of life. Migrating to free software is probably more easy than anything else. Getting rid of non-free software that frequently crash, fail, invite virus, almost impossible to fix because the source code is a secret, apart from costing a fortune, should be fairly easy to forget as a terrible nightmare. Don't worry about the proprietary companies: they will quickly change their ways and learn to live life in the new environment.
BTW, the X Server was designed to be used in a networked environment, with a client/server model in mind in 1980's, before MS Windows came. The concepts behind X Server are original and not found in other other operating systems. It is the X Server concept that makes possible several very different desktop environments - like KDE, gnome, failsafe, fvwm2, icewm, mwm, olwm, twm, DyDe, Enlightenment and others, with each environment having their own wide range of themes. This is an innovative idea that makes a lot of sense, giving flexibility and usability to support a wide range of users and uses. Therefore, trite comments about Gnu/Linux desktops are only amusing.
Free software gives users of computers maximum freedom in using, copying, studying, sharing and improving software. All other considerations are extraneous, and not really germane here. Many proprietary companies have wisely supported these ideas, not only in their own interest, but also understanding the efficiency and productivity that could be achieved by using these principles and philosophy. Many proprietary companies have found niches to earn profits without taking away the computing freedoms of users.
RMS founded and led the free software movement, struggling for more than 20 years now, and your, "Today, it is easy for someone to stand up and say 'goto hell'", is a true complement for the success of the movement. We certainly can do without non-free software or those who insist upon imposing artificial restrictions to undermine computers.
I am all for supporting FOSS and encouraging it. We are doing it on our own way. But having some Windows machine in the premises is not a sin. Teaching Windows to students is also not a sin. The students we teach are meant for the industry out there. So we cannot separate education completely from industry. I agree, we need a balance. We are doing
that.
As the world changes, we will also change. In some cases we change before the world - but we cant be too ahead of the world, particularly when it comes to education and industry interaction.
When free software based on open standards is available, it does become meaningless to teach non-free software based on secrecy with no clues about how the software works or functions. It is unscientific to rely upon such tools for general use. Migration from non-free software to free software is much desirable. Please frame courses that would encourage migration from using non-free to free software. If such courses are already offered, please give wide publicity to such programs.
When austerity measures are called for every now and then, spending public funds on non-free software ignoring availability of free software could only be seen as sinful by right thinking people. As it has been point out here, even very rich and affluent nations like the US have framed strict guidelines asking public authorities to use free software, and I hope atleast some of the higher institutions spearheading development and training efforts here have the vision to take the right steps forward.