• CubitOom@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    I’d argue it’s better to use actual alternatives. Half of the issue with free and open source software is that it’s userbase is too small. If more people used it, it could actually improve in many ways.

    Lets take gaming on Linux as an example. The userbase on steam is somewhere around 5%. So there is almost no incentive for developers to make games that run nativly on Linux. Its actually easier to run the games in a compatibility layer then to get a Linux port of a game. And although wine and proton work incredibly well, sometimes even running a game better than on windows; a Linux native version of every game would be ideal. Which will never happen with such a small userbase.

    Next you have the terrible business practices of these companies. Even if you use the pirated versions. You are in their ecosystem and their community. You increase their profitability and their stock price simply by continuing the industry standard.

    Pirated versions of software like this is excusable if you need it for work or sometihing. But imagine if instead of staying with the status quo, you use and help improve actual free and open source alternatives. Versons of software that don’t steal your data or monetize how you use it by selling your input to others or stealing it for “AI” datasets.

    Imagine using free and open source software that gives you feedom because your data stays on your devices, your creations belong to only yourself or who ypu choose to share it with, and you work with others to improve it; even if it’s by just submitting bug reports. Imagine using something like that which you find so altruisticly beneficial that instead of pirating the software that has no respect for you, you donate money to the devs of free and open source software. Yes, I’m a pirate. But I do donate money to the right causes and something that protects my freedom is worth both my time and my money.

  • idegenszavak@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    No, they are not free, they are gratis alternatives.

    “Free software” is one term, and it’s meaning was defined in 1986 by RMS. Non of these software existed that time.

    The word “free” in our name does not refer to price; it refers to freedom. First, the freedom to copy a program and redistribute it to your neighbors, so that they can use it as well as you. Second,** the freedom to change a program, so that you can control it instead of it controlling you; for this, the source code must be made available to you.**

    • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      You’re acting like he invented the word “free”.

      He doesn’t get to hijack and redefine it, and his redefinition is not any kind of objective reality.

      • magic_smoke@links.hackliberty.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        You’re right, the first amendment wasn’t about freedom of expression, it was about not having to pay for books.

        Using the word free to describe something that doesn’t restrict you has been a thing for centuries. “Free Software” has been the accepted term within the software world to denote freedom respecting, libre, and open source software since the 80’s.

        This isn’t about because Richard Stallman said so. Its because its the definition pretty much everyone, especially those who’ve actually touched a compiler, uses.

          • magic_smoke@links.hackliberty.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            You’d maybe have a point if this was made up today, or even 10 years ago, but this was settled during the early years of the industry. Free software is free as in freedom, freeware is gratis but not free.

            This is established industry jargon, and has been for over two fucking decades. Not really sure why its being argued.

            • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              There is no one with the authority to make that determination.

              “Free” as in “no fee” has been heavily used the entire time people have tried to steal the definition to only apply to license terms, it has always been objectively correct, and it is literally impossible for it to ever not be objectively correct.

              • hedgehog@ttrpg.network
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                it is literally impossible for it to ever not be objectively correct

                And yet here you are, using “literally” to mean “figuratively.” Excuse me for not accepting your linguistic authority on the immutability of other words.

  • umbrella@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    free* as in beer, not as in speech. we still don’t really own it.