Re: [OT] mothers, free software

[Michal Suchanek]

On 11/18/05, ness <address@hidden> wrote:
> Robert Brockway wrote:
> > On Thu, 17 Nov 2005, ness wrote:
> >

> >> o  Free software cannot provide (data) security
> >
> >
> > The word "cannot" is very strong.  Open source apps _do_ provide data
> > security.  If she wants to claim OpenSSH doesn't provide data security
> > she better have some pretty good arguments ready :)
> >
>
> What really makes the conversation hard with her is that I can't give an
> example like, that, as she doesn't even has an idea of what it is. And
> she's not really interested learning it.

If she does not know anything about security she cannot claim what is
secure and what not.
If she learned anything at all it would be obvious that obscurity is
othogonal to security.

>
> > If she meant that free/open source apps are not as good at providing
> > data security, well people have been arguing back and forth on that for
> > a long time.  Opening the source allows the good guys and bad guys to
> > checkout the source.  Since it only takes one good guy seeing a problem
> > to alert me (and those who will fix the hole) I judge open source to be
> > benefical to security on my systems.
> >
> >> She also called called it fraud if a company sells support for a free
> >> program.
> >
> >
> > I always try to show respect to people's mothers but I have to say this
> > is absurd.  Fraud is "intentional deception for personal gain".  Where
> > is the deception if a company makes an agreement and does exactly what
> > it says it will do?
> >
> > Support can be provided for anything the buyer and seller agree to. A
> > support agreement is just recognition that the buyer needs external
> > assistance.  Providing support for free software is no different from
> > providing support for closed source software or shovelling snow.
> >
> > Claiming it's fraud makes no sense to me at all.
>
> Well, to me, too. Maybye one can explain this, she argumented as follows:
> The company creates software. It is free, so everyone can use it (she
> doesn't think about forking as she only thinks about end users). The
> company makes all money by selled support. Now she sais: the company has
> to be pretty sure the support is needed, so they should sell software
> and support and not hide behind the floss image.

Well, the fact that you can buy a shovel does not mean you cannot hire
somebody to shovel snow for you so that you only use the result: clean
paths.

To use software, you need to set it up, customize it,locate and fix
bugs, keep it up to date. You can do all this by yourself (if you are
dealing with free software at least) or you can hire somebody to do
some (most) of the work for you. That is what support is about.

On the other hand, you could view proprietary software support as
fraud: they better make the software buggy so that the support is
needed, and they force you to buy their support (or updates) as you
*cannot* fix it yourself (or hire some third party to do it fot you).

Thanks

Michal


--
             Support the freedom of music!
Maybe it's a weird genre  ..  but weird is *not* illegal.
Maybe next time they will send a special forces commando
to your picnic .. because they think you are weird.
 www.music-versus-guns.org  http://en.policejnistat.cz