We gotta start with the biggest apps first. Then move on to the AutoCADs. If Adobe moved, then the single largest publisher of software outside the OS vendors (by user) would make people notice. Then we'd get a bigger install base that would snowball to the next biggest, etc, etc. so that Linux was it's own platform.

As a Mint 16/17 user that occasionally deals with Win 8:
- Updates - The distro has a unified updater. That updates in the background. Not at boot up, not at shutdown. No forced reboots by the updater. No waiting.
- Metro (user learning curve)
- and an overall respect for you. I get the feeling I'm a market, a commodity when on Windows. Told to install all this crapware, slogged aroudn with the latest trends. I just want to work, or kill time under my terms. If you need firm example, MS forcing MSN Messenger over to Skype. All the various virus scanners and viruses. I love being immune to all those web hacks.

I've transitioned a 65 year old man (neighbor) and my 30-something sister to Mint 17 Cinnamon. Both have zero issues after I switched them from XP.

I use Mint 17 Linux daily, but what I miss, what is really lacking are Adobe apps. Someone should start a kickstarter for Linux ports. Adobe is already familiar with Qt ( I think I read Lightroom is Qt) so they have the experience.

Let's put our money where our mouth is and get adobe to Kickstart the ports.

We'll win it when it is irrelevant.

That would be fine. If I imposed such a restriction, someone can come along and invent separate software a less restrictive license, which is completely within their right.

Um what?

I'm on a mobile team and iOS and Android are a lot less similar than you would think. There are few constructs shared between the two. This isn't Qt's problem.

It's not a popularity contest. It's about our legacy as human beings and as open source is inherently collective, our collective coding effort being a moral and just one.
While I would like the license to be popular, only in so much that I can be assured that the software is being used to advance humanity, not to stifle it. As well as contributors to the projects can rest assured the code they submit would never be used against themselves or others in an immoral fashion.

You, of course, are free to choose an immoral license.

 

If that is so, then I find it abhorrent that the OSS movement prioritizes the freedoms of killing, censorship and persecution above the right to life and live.

So what you're saying is we could have an OSS licensed SkyNet? "It's ok because it's GPL!" Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Maybe not?

I'm on board with OSS. But I don't think it goes far enough. The right to modify the code you run is a good one. But I am calling for OSS licenses to pick up another clause, the Zero-Kill clause, where in using the software in any weapons platform (be it sniper rifles or predator drones) is forbidden. People should have the right to not fear being killed by open source software.

Additionally, I am calling for another clause to protect human rights. People should be free from fear that OSS will be used to restrict their freedoms in other ways. This includes forbidding use of the software for censorship or oppression.

I'm not entirely sure how this got modded insightful. The patent system is certainly not built upon owning an idea. They cover a particular implementation, a certain solution to a problem, not just an idea. If you invent a machine that makes unicorn farts, you can patent that machine. If I make a unicorn fart machine that operates in a different way, I am free to do so. Now the market has two different unicorn fart machine styles, and we are arguably better off as a society.

As an engineer with some hands on experience filing and working around patents, I can honestly say that a large part of the patent system still works as intended. I believe inventors should be protected, especially when it's a David and Goliath situation, and patents still offer some of that protection. I also believe that the patent system encourages inventors in at least two ways. It lets you know that there is at least one solution to your problem, and that somebody thought it was worthwhile enough to patent it. It also forces an inventor to be more creative and come up with different solutions to the problem than what has already been done. Sometimes when you have to think of a different solution, you end up with a better solution.

That being said, I think business method patents are stupid, and that software patents are evil. And if you're going to file a patent on something, you sure as shit better not try to sue me on "trade secret" grounds. (yes, that actually happens)

What about when the press uses a quad copter with a camera to go behind the gates of a company doing something nasty, or a wealthy politician's compound where something illegal is going on? Seems like this would make it harder for whistle-blowers to do their thing.

The more prescient (or paranoid) among us have been nursing alternative "real-name" identities on-line for a while now. I started one of mine about 4 years ago; he uses Google+ and posts the odd comment to online forums (not this one). I had another one about a decade ago, but I lost the password to it's keystone account. I think the key is going to be having enough dummy accounts, that I can have them be in each others' circles. But I really don't know if it will be worth it to go to that much trouble.