Posted on 02/10/2010 11:46:12 AM PST by US Navy Vet
Any info will be appriciated.
I don't worry about their politics. Don't have to as I don't give them any money.
With MS, every OS sold contributes to their leftist politics as you are (directly or indirectly) financing them. Same thing with Apple.
Ditto to all the above, and add this: Linux is MORE than free, as one doesn't need to run anti-virus software.
To the original poster about Windows 7 upgrade: If your machine runs Vista fine, it'll run W7 better. If you are not having any problems with Vista, don't waste your money, keep Vista. If you are feeling adventurous, get ya some Linux. Ubuntu is good, Mint is better, but my fave is PCLinuxOS.
“It’s an easy upgrade. In fact, Windows 7 should have been named Windows Vista Service Pack 3. The only bugaboo is that Windows 7 does not contain an email program. You have to provide your own or go to the Microsoft site and download one of theirs. (It’s free.) The old Windows Mail has been replaced by Windows Live Mail. “
Why use ANY Microsoft Email program???? “Free” or otherwise.
The FREE (open source) Email program “Thunderbird” became my Email program in the age of MS-InternetExplorer 5; at the same time I replaced IE5 with “Firefox”, which ended all my web-browsing issues at the time. Both programs are as robust as any alternative from MS; both are updated, free, all the time and both work on Macs and Windows, including Vista and Win 7.
There is a big difference in buying Windows and getting linus for free. With linux you are not supporting anyone with your money, with Windows you are supporting no end of left wing idiots with your money. I run both XP and Mint(a better version of Ubuntu)on my computer. And you think somehow Bill Gates is a conservative?
I think Linus Torvalds has managed to steer clear of politics, concentrating on the technical side. Given his background in Helsinki and where he has chosen to live (Portland, OR), it’s probable that he’s not going to be seen cheerleading at the next Tea Party event. :-)
But as long as he keeps his leftist leanings away from the code, it’s OK with me. And as you correctly pointed out, we’re not obligated to give the free software crew a dime for their work.
FWIW, I don’t even use a Linux ``distro’’. I’ve been rolling my own platform straight from source since 1992 and keeping it updated incrementally over the years.
“Of course, this begs the question: Why complain about it?”
There was a reason for switching and more reasons for not switching back. Just saying what those reason’s are.
Thanks for the response. However, how did you derive an implication in my message that Bill Gates was a conservative?
You are merely trying to weasel out of your original statement.
I will repeat basically what I said, "Linux is free, Windows cost money, therefore if you use windows you are supporting the left, if you use a free version of Linux you are supporting no one".
Isn't it a shame that people on the left(some Linux developers, not all)are the ones who believe in freedom when it comes to computers, not necessarily free(meaning no cost)but free to use on any machine you happen to own without buying additional copies, free to develop it yourself if you wish and free access to the source code.
Microsoft does none of that.
If you were NOT implying that MS is to the right then what was your whole comment concerning Linux developers being on the left all about?
In my initial post you derived a dichotomy on my behalf somehow consisting of Linux vs. Windows. Here on my systems, I have Solaris 8 and 10, Linux, OpenBSD and FreeBSD and no Microsoft-based platforms.
It doesn’t follow from asserting that many of those involved with Linux are left-leaning leads to the conclusion that Microsoft’s politics are thus to the contrary. It’s certainly not and I doubt that Bill Gates will cast a ballot for a conservative any more than Linus Torvalds will.
Please calex59 don’t try to engage me in an argument since I have no quarrel with any of your points. You’ve explained quite well the concept of freedom as it applies to software. That’s at heart of its appeal to me since my preference is to be able adjust the application at the source code level to meet my needs.
In this particular situation of operating systems and applications, I can separate the art from the artisan. Although I vehemently disagree with the politics of Richard Stallman and those in free software of like mind, he does craft some great code. And since he gets not a penny from me to support his socialist visions, I’ll still gladly use emacs, gcc and other tools from the GNU project.
Evidently Jim Robinson also is able to do such a separation since FR’s webserver is Apache, typically hosted on Linux (as well as the BSDs or other Unices). And, to be sure, there are plenty of leftist sites using Microsoft’s IIS, CAIR is just one that comes to mind.
By the way. going down memory lane, I subsequently came across a ``spirited’’ thread well over 6 years old on this topic that produced some provocative comments:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/973863/posts
To directly respond to this part of your query, I was interested in differing viewpoints and anecdotes on the matter.
Some background context: Several years ago, a gentleman who attended Sunday School with me used to chat about SUNW's Solaris, at the time moving from version 6 to 7. He was a strongly-conservative Christian, ex-military, a bit gruff but still amiable. He was then working in IT for an oil/gas company here before getting transferred back to Oklahoma.
Anyway, he was quite annoyed with certain GNU Project applications that were ``infecting'' (his words) the operating system with the version change. In particular, the bash shell was added to the main set of packages installed as part of the Solaris base environment. He told me that he then made a point of removing ``all that pinko GNU stuff'' from the systems he maintained at his shop.
I countered that I thought the GNU version of awk (gawk) was pretty good and had some nice features beyond what the stock awk offered. But he was adamant in his opposition to the free software philosophy in general and GNU in particular. In hindsight, I believe he wasn't able to draw a line of demarcation between the politics and philosophy of the software's creator and the created product.
On the other hand, he may have just been a traditionalist since he's one of the few people I've known who actually preferred the line-oriented ed text editor to fullscreen editors such as vi.
So you're the one!
Speaking for myself, I don't see the need. The OS is a product and I do not analyze the politics behind the provider for everything I buy. Why should computer software be any different?
If I were to concern myself with this, I would be unable to actually use a computer. Sure, there are plenty of leftists and atheists in OSS. Bill Gates is a liberal, his organization has provided incredible sums to Planned Parenthood. Steve Jobs is a liberal. So, if you don't use Linux, Windows, or a Mac, there isn't much left. I guess there's BSD, but it shares a lot of its ecosystem with Linux. And we haven't even looked at the OEMs in the PC world.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.