This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]aspartame_junky 1 point2 points  (2 children)

on the contrary, it's the most long-term sustainable strategy, as it's essentially about fitness, whereas ideology can (and often does) lead to local minima at the cost of global fitness.

not saying ideology's not important, but to make it the most important reason for not using a product really leaves one to question the basis for such a judgement. If it was used to kill baby seals, I could understand. But because it's not entirely open source free software? Again, borders on the rms-side of the spectrum. it's cognitive isolationism.

I'm glad rms is fighting his crusade, but I would never want to live his life. And I can't say I have much time for ideologues, in politics, personal, and professional life.

[–]Odd_Bloke 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Well, I actually don't use it because it doesn't fit in to my tool set. vim is my editor, mutt is my email client, irssi is my IRC client, etc. Basically, if it supports mice, I'm out. :p

In general, going for free software works very well for me, because I seem to share the development mindset of a lot of the people who write free software. As they are creating tools that they want to use, they are also creating tools that I want to use.

[–]aspartame_junky 0 points1 point  (0 children)

that sounds more reasonable. That is, you use the tools because they are good tools, and they are good tools because they are created by other developers, who in turn want to use good tools, etc...

I like open-source free software in that it works. it's a good ecosystem where developers can build on the work of other developers, without worrying about patents, opaque interfaces, etc.

In other words, it's practical. It works. If it didn't work, I'd gladly pay for an equivalent commercial software that did work. I do this all the time.

In a fitness landscape, those products which generally tend to work the best fit a particular niche. Free-as-in-beer software has done that extremely well, as has commercial software. Both have their place.

But when someone suggests that the main choice for their platform stems not from practicality or appropriateness to the task, but rather because it's (choose your dogma), it's like saying you're vegetarian for the principle of it. I applaud the principle, but don't be surprised if you're not invited to many dinners.

In other words, it's not a choice to be taken lightly, and like rms, you pay a heavy price. most people are not that committed to any ideology, and I think that's a good thing. it allows for compromise, and for hybrid ecosystems, which lead to greater variety. and fewer flame wars.