>>5
While I do agree, we need deal the fact that sublime text exists today. The distinction of "proprietary software should not be a legitimate alternative" is so minute within the context of people's understanding of free software that IMO, I didn't have any problem using it.
>>6
If you want to structure you ideas like that, you can if you understand the meaning of the ideas. If you are not clear, then you will confuse yourself as you use these ideas.
Name:
Anonymous2013-04-12 0:14
Free software is software that non-free exact copies of your neighbour software GNU's not exact copies with your neighbour not necessarily bad with software that's free software of exact copies with your free, as in free beer, neighbour. Cloud computing respects your neighbour's freedom to share free, as in free beer, copies of your free neighbour software that's free software that is wherein copyleft is a free technique that enjoys playful cleverness, thus it is a free as in free speech patent used as a hack cast to a pointer that respects your neighbour's freedom to share free, as in free beer, copies of your neighbour's free software software that respects your right to enjoy playful cleverness with a free, as in both free speech and free beer, technique called copyleft.
I'll take any questions.
Name:
Anonymous2013-04-12 0:14
Free software is software that non-free exact copies of your neighbour software GNU's not exact copies with your neighbour not necessarily bad with software that's free software of exact copies with your free, as in free beer, neighbour. Cloud computing respects your neighbour's freedom to share free, as in free beer, copies of your free neighbour software that's free software that is wherein copyleft is a free technique that enjoys playful cleverness, thus it is a free as in free speech patent used as a hack cast to a pointer that respects your neighbour's freedom to share free, as in free beer, copies of your neighbour's free software software that respects your right to enjoy playful cleverness with a free, as in both free speech and free beer, technique called copyleft.
I'll take any questions.
Name:
Anonymous2013-04-12 0:15
Free software is software that non-free exact copies of your neighbour software GNU's not exact copies with your neighbour not necessarily bad with software that's free software of exact copies with your free, as in free beer, neighbour. Cloud computing respects your neighbour's freedom to share free, as in free beer, copies of your free neighbour software that's free software that is wherein copyleft is a free technique that enjoys playful cleverness, thus it is a free as in free speech patent used as a hack cast to a pointer that respects your neighbour's freedom to share free, as in free beer, copies of your neighbour's free software software that respects your right to enjoy playful cleverness with a free, as in both free speech and free beer, technique called copyleft.
I'll take any questions.
Name:
Anonymous2013-04-12 0:46
>>1 I don't have access to its source code, which makes it difficult for me to trust it.
BETTER YET, DOES IT HAVE PAREDIT, MOTHERFUCKER? I DIDNT THINK SO.
Name:
OP2013-04-12 16:35
Ok it's proprietary.
I still use flash player, and proprietary drivers, proprietary BIOS. Free software which provides that functionality does not exist.
I prefer free software but I will not restrict my comfort because of this preference. Added to this my bet is that sublime has less malicious features than the above examples I already are using.
>>16
I don't have flash player, I don't have any proprietary drivers, my BIOS is coreboot, and the only non-OSS software running on my machine is the wireless firmware and the VGA BIOS, neither of which are likely to create security vulnerabilities (intentional or not).
I don't really give a shit about freeness of software, only about security and auditability. Closed-source software is difficult to audit, and I have better things to do than waste a significant portion of my life proving that it's not going to do evil things once I run it.
>>16
Malicious features are one reason why you shouldn't accept software without access to code - it's simply impractical to audit the functions of a program without the code. The other reason is that you can't tinker with the software so you can't improve it to meet your needs. Does Sublime text work in SolarisOS, SyllableOS, or InfernoOS?
There is also the issue that you are forbidden to share copies of it. To accept it means users are divided from helping one another.
Name:
Anonymous2013-04-12 19:13
>>19
I won't tinker with device drivers or any of the sort.
I also won't tinker with something that I pay somebody else to do for me. Sublime is modable using python scripts that is enough for my purposes.
Name:
Anonymous2013-04-12 19:19
>>20
It's not enough to modify the program itself, people should be permitted to rip out useful parts of the program and use it in other programs. You don't even need to do it yourself if you can find a friend to help or if you commission a professional to do it.
>>20 I also won't tinker with something that I pay somebody else to do for me.
If you're paying for it, it stands to reason you should be allowed to modify it (which requires access to the source code) and do pretty much anything you want (perhaps except redistribution).
Name:
Anonymous2013-04-12 21:52
>>22
You are right, that is a reason not to buy it, thanks.
Still I would feel like a hypocrite since I use other proprietary gratis software.
>>24
I actually like it enough to pay for it is that ok?
Name:
Anonymous2013-04-12 23:22
>>25
Well, of course. Just buy it. I only use open source software, but I would never steal a commercial product. I'd just buy a license, if I needed or loved it.