Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Filtering By License Should Be Possible in App Markets

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the virtual-rms-is-watching-you dept.

Software 57

tonymercmobily writes "With the latest news from Microsoft, which will allow open source apps in their store, we will see more and more an abundance of per-pay applications mixed with license-free ones. What if you can't tell between free and non-free anymore? Even now, a quick search on the Android market is just not telling enough. But what do you do then when Ubuntu has the same problem?" For Android there's always the F-Droid market that exclusively lists Free Software (it's small, but I've found it pretty useful).

cancel ×

57 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Wait (3, Insightful)

masternerdguy (2468142) | more than 2 years ago | (#38585296)

Except in Apples: There's no free as in freedom there.

OS X apps (was Re:Wait) (1)

WillAdams (45638) | more than 2 years ago | (#38585774)

FWIW, the most useful list of software I've found recently is Hyper Jeff's OS X (Native) Applications list:

http://osx.hyperjeff.net/Apps/apps.php?w=1 [hyperjeff.net]

which allows filtering by license type.

That said, there's not much useful new software coming out (I'd love to be proven wrong w/ download links) --- mostly it's just up-dates to stuff I've already d/l'd and installed:

LyX
Scribus
Inkscape

I'd love to find a modern alternative / successor to Zoomracks (I want a freeform database which allows calculations on information w/in it).

William

Here's a list of Open Source iOS applications (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 2 years ago | (#38587760)

Except in Apples: There's no free as in freedom there.

If that's true, how is it possible there are all these open source [maniacdev.com] applications?

Re:Wait (1)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 2 years ago | (#38590102)

How did this get Insightful?

Oh, right. I forgot the groupthink. Apple bad. rar. Microsoft evil. rar.

Facts: not necessary to form viable opinions any more.

Android is not FREE software (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38585328)

You should only use GPL 3 software and OSs. It's about FREEdom.

Re:Android is not FREE software (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38585368)

As much of a proponent as I am of the GPL and free software in general, you wouldn't even have been able to post your asinine comment without non-GPL software, so maybe you should take your own advice.

Re:Android is not FREE software (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38588338)

Posted from w3 running on GNU/HURD/EMACS.

Re:Android is not FREE software (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38585498)

Freedom of speech requires the right to remain silent. GPL, particularly v3, takes that away.

rms doesn't own 'FREE' (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38586356)

There are no GPL3 OSs - Linux definitely ain't one. So either wait indefinitely for HURD, or put a sock in it! Oh, and while you are @ it, make Emacs a combo of Firefox, Libre-Office, Acrobat, Movie Maker, Format Factory, I-Tunes and a whole host of other utilities, and then we can start even considering it!

Otherwise, right now, Android is the only thing that's keeping Linux even alive, since one can actually do stuff on it, which is more than can be said about your GNUSense and whatever else it is rms prefers. Speaking of which, you're not him, are you?

Oh, and one more thing - lose the 'Free' label - Stallman using it is the equivalent of East Germany or North Korea or China or South Yemen calling themselves People's Democratic Republics. Call it 'Liberated Software' instead, instead of misusing English to make really lame assertions.

Re:rms doesn't own 'FREE' (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#38586804)

Otherwise, right now, Android is the only thing that's keeping Linux even alive,

Red Hat (and their customers) would like a word with you.

Re:rms doesn't own 'FREE' (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38589204)

So would Wall Street and Hollywood and Tivo and scientists and the Internet.

And? (1)

WillerZ (814133) | more than 2 years ago | (#38585348)

The story here is what?

If you're using precompiled software what does it matter? Unless you build from source you have no evidence that the source on offer in any way corresponds to the binary you're running anyway.

Re:And? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38585506)

The story here is what?

Use Gentoo.

Re:And? (1)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 2 years ago | (#38585698)

I believe the story is that there's a lot of freetards out there who will take non-functional free software over functional non-free software, without even a thought for what the licensing gets them... They just know "buh, GPL good, closed bad".

Trusting trust. . . (1)

JSBiff (87824) | more than 2 years ago | (#38585730)

Can you really trust your pre-compiled compiler?

Reflections on Trusting Trust [bell-labs.com] .

The thing I like about Open Source/Free Software, in the end, isn't so much that I have to, myself, inspect and compile every program. I trust the pre-compiled binaries because I know that if someone *does* try to sneak something in, someone else will find it, probably pretty quickly.

So, I guess what I'm saying is, I'm glad there's very technical and very paranoid people out there double checking everything so I don't have to.

Re:Trusting trust. . . (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38585780)

I'm glad there's very technical and very paranoid people out there double checking everything so I don't have to.

This is why I don't vote. I'm glad there are rational, educated, and logical individuals weighing all the options and making great choices. I get to kick back, drink and play games, and watch my country soar into prosperity.

Re:And? (2)

polymeris (902231) | more than 2 years ago | (#38586214)

I almost always use precompiled FOSS. Why? Because in the event that something breaks, e.g. with a change of hardware or a software update, or if I need a new feature, I can then download the source and fix/improve it, without needing to look for and get used to a new program.

Games are an example of this for me. I hadn't played any propietary ones till the Humble Bundle came out-- decided to give indie games a try. A frustrating experience, quickly noticed how useful it is to have access to the source when something goes wrong, even if 95% of the time you don't need it.

Re:And? (1)

gknoy (899301) | more than 2 years ago | (#38587574)

What the heck platform do you run on that the Humble Bundle games don't work? (I'm genuinely curious, as I didn't realize they had non-Windows versions?)

Re:And? (1)

polymeris (902231) | more than 2 years ago | (#38589158)

Debian x86_64 on a relatively old PC.

I'm genuinely curious, as I didn't realize they had non-Windows versions?

Being cross-platform is supposedly one of their major selling points. In practice, for many games, Linux (and probably mac) support comes as an afterthought.

Approximately half of the game simply don't work. Some run but are unresponsive (Flash stuff). Some work only using the windows versions through wine. The "Frozenbyte" bundle was the worst, ZERO of the games work, and they still haven't even released one of them, Splot.

Even in the better cases, like the excelent Dungeons of Dredmor, the game had to be patched to work and isn't updated as often as the windows version, despite promises to the contrary.

Re:And? (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 2 years ago | (#38589680)

Debian x86_64 on a relatively old PC.

Relatively old ... 64 bit ...

Seriously?

Re:And? (1)

polymeris (902231) | more than 2 years ago | (#38590612)

Yes. A 2003 dual opteron machine. I would consider that relatively old, but YMMV.

Re:And? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38586284)

It does matter because there is so many people who think it is ok to add adware to GPL or other freely licensed code.

I think the adware situation is crazy on mobile platforms. (Its not ok on Windows it certainly wouldn't be accepted into something like Debian).

90% of the apps I have on my phone are ones I have found on fdroid (Hate advertising in all forms.)

The rest (Other than Tapatalk that I got free from getjar) are from big companies labs (Qualcomm / SE / Google etc that I can find out before hand whether they have ad's or not).

I would probably buy Tapatalk if it was on the amazon marketplace (and I could access it from the UK) don't trust Google somewhat trust Amazon (With my credit card details anyway) never had issues with customer service etc (Cannot even speak to Google so that is a no go).

People make a big deal about wanting the official Android Market but I don't care (As long as you have one device with it then no problem)

They should put a permission that states that it is adware (As opposed to just full internet access) but I know they won't Google is an ad company when it comes down to it.

I just don't bother installing something if it needs full internet access.

Free or non-free can be ok (i.e I use Xig's $129 xserver on my laptop (Which is unusable with Xorg (r200)) time limited demo's etc are fine adware totally isn't).

Stuff like people adding airpush into apps after the event is even worse.

I have tried (1)

BlueBat (748360) | more than 2 years ago | (#38585370)

When I was temporarily using my fathers android phone, I wanted a way to sort by price. I could, at the time, find no way to do this. This was really annoying because I had to look through tons of search results to find any of the free apps. It doesn't make me want to get my own android device because finding the free stuff to try out is nearly impossible.

Re:I have tried (1)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 2 years ago | (#38585538)

There's no way to sort by price, but there are way to select free-as-in-beer apps only, I don't have an android device nearby at the moment, but I remember it being very easy to do.

But that is rather non-sequetor (sp?) to the matter at hand, which is a desire for software with Open Source licenses.

In Ovi Store (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38585450)

I'd settle for keyword search — even it does not work. Searching for "sleepyti.me" (a site which I hoped someone had made an app for) gives endless results:

  • 2 angry birds (free/premium)
  • youtube downloader, some camera app
  • currency calculator, all kinds of small utilities
  • even apps that are simply web links (though not to the site in question [sleepyti.me] )

Also, the search results magically wrap around, so I don't really know which was the first.

For the topic in hand, no there's no license search possibility, only this, what ever this search is.

I don't know about you... (4, Insightful)

Carik (205890) | more than 2 years ago | (#38585456)

...but here's what I do:

I use the software that does what I need most effectively. My needs are rarely served by refusing to use a piece of software just because it's not open source. I often find that the open source software is a better value (for my needs, GIMP is a better choice than Photoshop, and it's starting to look like it's also a better choice than Lightroom), but not always.

The simple fact is, most people just don't care what license their software is. You can complain as much as you want that other people are just uneducated, but it doesn't matter.

To address one point directly from the article:

Are we really approaching a world where "free" could mean "under a free license", or "proprietary and crippled in terms of features", or "proprietary but ad-supported"? Really?

No. We're not approaching that. We're STILL at that. Free, to the vast run of humanity, means "you don't have to pay for it." It means "This doesn't cost anything." To a relatively small number, it may also mean "I have set this product free, and you may do whatever you want with it," but that's not the majority view.

Google knows that. That's why the free label on Android means "no charge." So does Canonical. They've come closer than anyone else to marketing linux in a way that appealed to ordinary consumers. Those ordinary consumers don't really care whether an app or application is open source. They care whether they'll have to pay for it or not. That's not a failing on their part. That's good business sense. It's rarely a worthwhile business technique to annoy your consumers with ideology: it's a much better technique to offer them stuff they don't have to pay for, if they'll just buy this one expensive thing from you.

Should FSF decide to change its name (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38585808)

Then what English word does mean "I have set this product free, and you may do whatever you want with it"?

Re:Should FSF decide to change its name (1)

Carik (205890) | more than 2 years ago | (#38586038)

Well, "FOSS" seems to work pretty well. For people who know what it means, it works great. For everyone else, they can look it up.

Any word with multiple meanings confuses people once in a while. Using "free" for both software that's under an open source license and software that costs nothing has always seemed like a pitfall someone early on in the FOSS movement should have avoided to me. It makes it really hard to explain to people who don't already know what you're talking about, and leads to confusion even among people who do understand the concepts involved.

Re:Should FSF decide to change its name (2)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38586186)

FOSS is an initialism including "open source", a term that isn't perfect either [gnu.org] . The term "open source" might get confused with a program whose source code is available but under a license forbidding commercial distribution or distribution of derivatives or even distribution at all. In fact, I've seen exactly this confusion happen at my last employer.

Re:Should FSF decide to change its name (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38586528)

The term "open source" might get confused with a program whose source code is available but under a license forbidding commercial distribution or distribution of derivatives or even distribution at all.

That's not confusing, that's open source! It's not Free Software, which is why we need such a thing. We were calling stuff "Open" before we were calling it "Open Source" and Caldera is actually the first case where we can find someone using the term Open Source... for OpenDOS. OpenDOS source code derivatives bay be redistributed only for "non-commerical purposes" [sic] and thus it is Open Source but not Free Software, though still more "free" than as in your example above.

Re:Should FSF decide to change its name (1)

firewrought (36952) | more than 2 years ago | (#38587536)

OpenDOS source code derivatives bay be redistributed only for "non-commerical purposes" [sic] and thus it is Open Source but not Free Software.

Umm... this is just wrong. Open Source is a trademark of the Open Source Initiative. Their criteria [opensource.org] for open source software explicitly prohibits restrictions on fields of use (such as the one no commercial activity clause in OpenDOS's proprietary license).

Think of Open Source as a form of brand identity for Free Software. They are both useful terms, but the latter lacks (1) a logo, (2) a single, specific formalization, (3) a license certification process, (4) important legal protections, and (5) marketability [because of the whole "free as in beer"/"free as in freedom" thing].

Re:Should FSF decide to change its name (1)

unixisc (2429386) | more than 2 years ago | (#38588776)

#5 above - aside from the marketability - is also ultimately an issue of integrity. If you tell someone that something is free, that person has every right to expect that its price is $0.00. If he later on finds out that it's not, he would be pretty justified in feeling cheated.

It's more of a coincidence that most 'free' software is actually free of cost, making it even more confusing. In other words, a 'free software' could be free without being free, or could be free without being free. Get what I mean? Neither do I!

Open Source makes much more sense. I do however think that since OSI too supports the 4 GNU freedoms, it too, particularly w/ freedom #2, effectively puts a cap on software pricing. B'cos the moment one bans vendors from restricting the redistribution of software, one automatically makes it legal for anybody to resell it to others, and effectively makes every customer a competitor. Only saving grace - a lot of licenses that work around it are compatible w/ Open Source, but not w/ GPL.

Re:Should FSF decide to change its name (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38592280)

OpenDOS source code derivatives bay be redistributed only for "non-commerical purposes" [sic] and thus it is Open Source but not Free Software.

Umm... this is just wrong. Open Source is a trademark of the Open Source Initiative.

No, it isn't. The rest of your comment is invalid. When you know something [hyperlogos.org] you may come back and make another comment.

Re:Should FSF decide to change its name (3, Insightful)

unixisc (2429386) | more than 2 years ago | (#38586538)

Answer to your headline question, it absolutely should! Hey, call it 'Liberated Software' for crying out loud, nobody will mistake that to mean price = $0.00. Use the right words in the right places. Any Tom, Dick or Harry one asks will, if asked about free software, think that a CD that he can just pick up, insert into his PC and install what's there, contains it. He's not likely to know about the source code and all that.

Really, the best term for that is 'Open Source', but that's for those who are focussed on a devlopment methodology, and not a cult. For those who are absolutely hung up on RMS's concepts of 'liberty' as opposed to development methodology, call it something like 'Liberated Software' or 'Software Liberty'. There is no reason to stick to the term 'Free Software' like a leech, particularly when it's such a misleading term. And yeah, that implies that the FSF should change its name. Drop terms like 'Free Software' or 'Software Freedom' and call it 'Liberated Software' or 'Software Liberty' if one likes. And rename the FSF as LSF or Liberated Software Foundation, or something along those lines.

Or alternatively, why not make use of the GNU brand, and call it GNU Software Foundation, or GSF? At least, it ties it w/ GNU, and doesn't confuse it w/ other such projects such as Debian, KDE and so on.

Re:I don't know about you... (0)

c0d3g33k (102699) | more than 2 years ago | (#38585830)

...but here's what I do:

I use the software that does what I need most effectively. My needs are rarely served by refusing to use a piece of software just because it's not open source. I often find that the open source software is a better value (for my needs, GIMP is a better choice than Photoshop, and it's starting to look like it's also a better choice than Lightroom), but not always.

The simple fact is, most people just don't care what license their software is. You can complain as much as you want that other people are just uneducated, but it doesn't matter.

I didn't read anything in the OP about refusing to use non-free (as in speech) software. For some the license preference is about ideology, granted, but the license used also says a lot about the nature of the project, the community surrounding it and the ultimate motivations/agendas of the developers.

I suspect that many people (including myself), when searching for an application in an App market would prefer to browse through the FLOSS offerings first, then fall back to free (as in beer) or adware and proprietary apps if nothing suitable (or familiar) is available.

Re:I don't know about you... (2)

Carik (205890) | more than 2 years ago | (#38586080)

[blockquote]I suspect that many people (including myself), when searching for an application in an App market would prefer to browse through the FLOSS offerings first, then fall back to free (as in beer) or adware and proprietary apps if nothing suitable (or familiar) is available.[/blockquote]

You're probably right. But "many" is not the majority. Most people just want to know whether it works. Google and Canonical aren't really aiming for the FOSS community. They're aiming for the community loosely labeled "people who have money." There's a fair amount of overlap, of course, but there's a lot more people in the second group than the first. Confusing 80% of the first community to cater to 90% of the second isn't really a good business decision.

That said, it probably wouldn't cost them much to add the feature, and it would be pretty easy to make it not get in the way of people who didn't care. I admit it would be a clever thing to do, and it would be nice if they did, since there are people who care.

Re:I don't know about you... (2)

c0d3g33k (102699) | more than 2 years ago | (#38586740)

But "many" is not the majority. Most people just want to know whether it works. Google and Canonical aren't really aiming for the FOSS community. They're aiming for the community loosely labeled "people who have money." There's a fair amount of overlap, of course, but there's a lot more people in the second group than the first.

Confusing 80% of the first community to cater to 90% of the second isn't really a good business decision.

You're getting pretty high on the Ladder of Inference (http://gwynteatro.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/climbing-the-ladder-of-inference/). This wouldn't have to be visible at the top level of an App market search/browse (using the most broadly applicable defaults), so the potential for confusion is minimal. Put it somewhere in 'advanced search options' and the people who care can find it.

As an aside, a lot more people may care about more than "it works" than you think, and the influence of the smaller group may be bigger than you think. I think it's just a matter of marketing, really. Look at how many people take "green", "organic", "fair-trade" or "save the planet" into account when purchasing something. You underestimate people - I'm boggled a how much some people know about the carbon footprint of certain things, even when their personal stereotype suggests they shouldn't. People have the potential to care about more than the merely practical and should at least have the opportunity to discover factors they may care about. From personal experience, family, friends and acquaintances don't understand all the nuances of FOSS (or proprietary vs. open, or DRM-free vs. locked down or un-contained vs. walled-garden), but they know that I do. They ask when it matters to them and they weigh what I tell them when making a decision. As a result they understand the larger issues better over time, make more informed decisions as a result and seem satisfied with the outcome regardless of which they chose. That's a win as far as I'm concerned.

Sometimes Free IS one of the needs & sometimes (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38586022)

My needs are rarely served by refusing to use a piece of software just because it's not open source.

But what if your needs include long-term maintenance (last-sorting to Do_It/Hire_Someone Yourself, if you have to) or the software being designed to never work against your interests? Free Software isn't the only software that can give you those things, but it's the only software where you know ahead of time that you're getting those things. When you get those things with proprietary software, it's a matter of luck and (especially with the maintenance aspect) only determined years afterwords.

"App Markets" does tend to imply "trivial" mobile applications, though. I'm not sure if people are yet getting themselves locked into proprietary hells with mobile (e.g. you're not using an iPhone to run our company's payroll, you don't have ten thousand documents stored on your Galaxy II which only one application is able to read) so I can see how these are lesser concerns, within this particular context.

So in a sense, I can see how using proprietary software on a phone is much like playing a proprietary game on your otherwise Free Linux PC. We're really just talking about toys here. If/when the Bad Things which tend to happen with proprietary software do eventually happen, you haven't really lost all that much. Few people cry "Oh no, this old game doesn't work on my new system (or I've had to delete it because it's malware), so now my life which depends on it is totally fucked."

Oh dear (4, Insightful)

gaspyy (514539) | more than 2 years ago | (#38585584)

OK, I'm a software developer and graphic designer. I know all about GPL and Creative Commons and I released plenty of my stuff under open and proprietary licenses as well.

However, when I buy or download an app (in "consumer mode"), I simply don't care about its license. What matters if it works as advertised, if it contains malware and if it's fun (for games). That's it. I couldn't care less if, say, "Smart Tools" is GPL v3 or Apache or proprietary. It does the job. 99.999% people think the same.

If you want to have only open source software on your tablet or phone, pat yourself on the back, you're so special.

Re:Oh dear (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | more than 2 years ago | (#38585792)

99.999 % of people would never dream about even downloading the source code to Firefox, yet what makes the difference long-term is that 0.001 % do.

Netscape also did the job back in the 90's.

Re:Oh dear (1)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 2 years ago | (#38587268)

Actually, I think Firefox is the clearest manifestation of the "big overstatement" of open source (I think calling it the "big lie" would be an overstatement itself, and not really fair to the FOSS community). Other than debian's re-branding, I'm pretty sure I've never seen anything like a fork of Firefox. I know just from slashdot that I'm not the only one who loathes their new broken-web-design UI and horrible usability decisions, but no one has forked it to put the old UI back (and no, extensions don't cut it. They can change it to sort of look like the old way, but can't get into some of the more deep-set behavioral issues).

I'm a developer, but not a UI guy, so I had a look to see if I could do anything with it. I can't and clearly, no one else can or wants to, either, so I'm left in the same boat that I'd be in if I'd gone with proprietary software.

Re:Oh dear (1)

walshy007 (906710) | more than 2 years ago | (#38592096)

With gpl software you are pretty much guaranteed long term stability, as the worst case scenario is it simply stagnates. With proprietary software at any moment the company can pull the rug from underneath you and no longer support your platform, change functionality in a negative way whereby you can no longer access the older version, etc etc. The benefits are numerous.

Re:Oh dear (1)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 2 years ago | (#38593514)

Except that, with the exception of access to older versions (which is not unique to FOSS. I can still download WinAmp 2.x, for example), Firefox is showing all of the problems you just listed for proprietary software. There is no stability, especially in a frigging 3-week release cycle and with no one to take up the mantle of making a non-braindead version, it's just as much a dead-end as it would be if it was closed source.

Re:Oh dear (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 2 years ago | (#38589810)

Mozilla is Netscape. They didn't actually do the job back in the 90s, they failed spectacularly and Microsoft proceeded to whip their asses.

Sun and AOL infused a bunch of money in the Netscape rejects that went on to reform Mozilla, and Mozilla is doing exactly the same thing as Netscape did.

The only difference is that now Mozilla releases the source, which the original Netscape did not, even though their source came from publicly funded research at a university.

The source to firefox is worthless for all practical purposes. Its not leading in any way, its worse than any other browser you can get for the platforms that matter in every conceivable way. Having the source makes exactly 0 long term difference. Long term, we'll all be dead, Firefox included, and some other batch of source will be used in its place for something that looks nothing like a web browser.

The fact that Firefox has taken so long to get to where it is, and other development project can pull together rendering engines in far less time just goes to show that Firefox's source isn't an asset. Which you'd know if you'd ever worked with it.

I have. Mozilla really is an example of how not to write software or run a software development company. No one is going to fix the shitty code for you if they stop fixing it, thats why there aren't any real forks of Firefox or Gecko, just wrappers. When people want to actually do something useful, they use some other code base, sometimes proprietary to display web pages.

Re:Oh dear (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#38587056)

It depends on the app. If it's something like a game, where it's basically throw-away code that I hope works now and may not care much if it stops working in six months, then I agree. On the other hand, if it's something that I want to use long-term, then I do care. For example, I bought OmniGraffle for OS X for my PowerBook. It came as a PowerPC binary. OS X 10.7 doesn't include the PowerPC emulator, so if I want to open any of the OmniGraffle files then I have to either buy a new version, run OS X 10.6 in a VM, or run it on an old machine. In contrast, I can take pretty much any open source code I was running on the PowerBook and just recompile it. I can also usually take the open source applications I run on FreeBSD and compile them for the Mac, sometimes with minor tweaks.

I don't care about the fact that it's open source, but I do care about what the fact that it's open source means for long-term support. I'm happy to use some free and some proprietary software on a daily basis, but I won't depend on anything that isn't open source.

Re:Oh dear (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 2 years ago | (#38589914)

$100 says that your statement is 100% false in every example you can give me.

What you have stated is the theoretical premise of why Open Source rocks.

The reality of it is, that old software thats out of data probably won't even compile and build on your new OS, its certain that you're going to have shared library dependancies missing.

You're claiming 'I can run old Open Source software', when what you mean is 'I can go get a free updated copy of an old Open Source program that is still maintained and get THAT to compile on my modern machine'

And for reference, 10.7 doesn't uninstall the PPC emulator, it just doesn't install it out of the box, so if you had the PPC emulator before the upgrade, you had it afterwords and you can always reinstall it. And PPC only would have been OSX 10.4, another $50 says that I can pick pretty much any non-trivial OSS project released any time during 10.4's active sales life and it will not just compile and run out of the box on any modern Linux or *BSD.

You're trying to compare OmniGraffle 1.0 to OSS Software 5.0 and ignoring the fact that OmniGraffle 5.0 has been out for a year, you just aren't willing to pay for it.

So, what it boils down to has absolutely 0 to do with 'compatibility' or 'maintainability'. What you're talking about is 100% monetary. You don't want to pay anything to get the updates, your just hiding behind OSS as your excuse when that has nothing to do with it.

Re:Oh dear (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#38590370)

$100 says that your statement is 100% false in every example you can give me.

I'll take that bet. Two projects: gnuplot and pdflatex. I have the versions that I used for my PhD thesis in 2006 on my PowerPC Mac. I recompiled the same versions on my first MacBook Pro. This copy still works on my new MacBook Pro running 10.7 (I didn't upgrade, the new machine came with it, so no Rosetta - even if you do copy if from the old machine, you don't have the PowerPC libraries and it won't actually work, so that's more nonsense in your post).

Search for GPL (1)

brainzach (2032950) | more than 2 years ago | (#38585620)

Not enough people care about software licenses to warrant adding an option to filter. Just type include GPL in search box and you will find the desired results

The developers who care about software licenses will include the information in the description as a selling point.

Re:Search for GPL (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38586552)

Google should know the license so that if the issue of some software needing to be treated differently comes up in the future they know which is which without an audit. Then they could express this information in an advanced search form at little to no cost. Indeed, it should lower their costs over time, since people would be spending less time looking at apps they don't want anyway.

Feature Request? (1)

pr0fessor (1940368) | more than 2 years ago | (#38585658)

This really sounds like a feature request. I want to filter my searches in a way that is not provided and get information in the results that is not provided. I don't know what to say I'm faced with apps everyday that don't have all the features I would like and is weighted down with features I never use. I would have submitted it to the manufacture not /.

All mobile apps should be FOSS (1)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | more than 2 years ago | (#38585692)

There are plenty of people who will pay the .99 cents to not have to compile the source but being able to take the source and compile your own is about as close as we can get to trusted applications.

Simple... Download What Works For You (1)

theshowmecanuck (703852) | more than 2 years ago | (#38585702)

But what do you do then when Ubuntu has the same problem?"

If there was enough demand I think you would find 'filter by license' already there. But I don't think it needs to be there cluttering up already limited screen space (on my Android phone) when it is only demanded by a very, very small group of dogmatics.

Personally I don't give a shit if an app is open source or not. If I am installing an application, it is for a purpose. Whether it is open source or not is moot. And I am certain that I am in the majority here. If the app does the job, then I use it, if it doesn't I don't. If an open source app is good enough to use, then it will be used. That is a far better filter than dogma. Having open source apps survive on merit will ultimately make the open source world stronger. And most of the world doesn't care about how the tool is licensed anyway, they too only care if it does the job (and I don't blame them). And you won't change that so give up trying. I think if the open source world focused more on that than the 'only open source is good, use it because it is open' dogma, eventually you might see a real 'Linux on the desktop' breakthrough.

It is understandable that Ubuntu doesn't support this. Their slogan is, 'it just works' or something like that. They support proprietary drivers, etc. because most of the users want their apps to just work. Most Linux users whether on Ubuntu or not probably also download the proprietary drivers if they aren't already installed. Why, because if they are necessary to make their system work the way they want it to, then that is what they will use. If a lot of the open source movement focused on satisfying the user and their needs instead of themselves and Stallman, then more people would use it. I generally support open source but I can't stand a lot of its pigheadedness.

And what about exploitative free-to-play? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38585778)

Free games with in-app purchases need to be marked as such. I saw that infamous game, Smurf's Village, was still marked "free" after that whole debacle last year. [washingtonpost.com]

A Good Start... (3, Insightful)

sigmabody (1099541) | more than 2 years ago | (#38586530)

I do think this is valuable information, but it doesn't go far enough. You should be able to filter apps by permissions as well, on platforms which support per-operation permissions for applications.

You know what would be even better, though? If the per-operation permissions were settable on a per-application basis, and then spoofed/failed if the app can't work without it. There are plenty of apps that I want to use, but require extraneous permissions for things I don't care about, and/or don't want the app to access. If someone could build a platform which put the permission usage into the user's hands (even as an Android variant, for example), that would be awesome.

Re:A Good Start... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38587082)

https://market.android.com/details?id=com.stericson.permissions#?t=W251bGwsMSwyLDUwMSwiY29tLnN0ZXJpY3Nvbi5wZXJtaXNzaW9ucyJd

Permissions Denied

The problem is not... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38588014)

The problem is not the ability to tell the difference between free and non-free licenses in the Android Market, the problem is not being able to tell which software is *really* free. Most of the free apps on the Android Market are trialware. Many of them contain so little functionality compared to their for-pay versions that they're essentially shells for an ad for the pay-for app. IMO, trialware should have its own section because it's not really free as in anything.

Uhm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38588136)

Why would Windows users care whether they are using FOSS or not? If they cared, they wouldn't be using Windows.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>