27 Feb
2007
27 Feb
'07
8:01 a.m.
On Monday 26 Feb 2007 23:01, Bengt Gördén wrote:
I couldn't agree more. The strength, and the exciting nature of free
software as I see it, is that it can do things closed source software
can't, or won't do - due to the rules of ownership or commercial pressure.
The problem is that the drive to _use_ free software can come just for
cost or political reasons, rather than simply finding an application that
does the job better - and these people want to see equivalents of things
they'd otherwise have to pay for.
I suppose a big problem is the OS divide - if there was only one, users
would be able to mix and match free or costly apps easier. Everyone talks
about choice, but it's restricted either way currently.
cheers,
dave
måndag 26 februari 2007 23:33 skrev Chris Cannam:
Yes, I should have said closed source or proprietary. Not that it makes
much difference in this context, as all the commercial audio apps are
proprietary and there are few proprietary non-commercial audio apps
that are substantial enough to inspire projects to clone them.
It's not that I wouldn't prefer they were free software; it's that
setting out to clone an existing program, especially in the field of
art or entertainment, is a misapplication of your own creative energy.
Here's the earlier flam^H^H^H^Hargument. I don't have much to add.
http://www.music.columbia.edu/pipermail/linux-audio-dev/2006-February/01474…
It's really a five pints in the pub discussion. I do instantly take a dislike to projects that
start up saying
their ambition is to clone some commercial app directly for Linux.
But that's another argument (that I seem to remember having on LAD
once before, and will have again in the pub with anyone, any day).
Well you're on. I've got no problem discussing that topic. It's not
commercial app that is the problem. It's the closed source that is.