Hi. On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 01:22:09PM -0400, Doug wrote: > > > On 09/27/2015 04:12 PM, Bob Holtzman wrote: > >On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 02:58:20PM +0300, Eliezer Croitoru wrote: > >>On 27/09/2015 13:47, Reco wrote: > >>> > >>>>>The above is one of the main reasons that many sysadmins prefer to use > >>>>>RedHat and Windows despite the fact that both companies cannot always be > >>>>>aware of very critical bugs. > >>>Oh. Now you put the Red Hat Enterprise Linux in the non-free category. > >>>May I ask why you did so? > >> > >>Answer: Can I get a copy of this > >>[http://www.redhat.com/en/technologies/virtualization] without > >>paying and with all the benefits? > > > >You're making the mistake of linux non-free soft ware with proprietary > >software. I suggest you read up on open source software. > > > > .........snip........ > > > There is Linux software that is proprietary and not free. Just because that's > the > case does not make such software a bad choice or a bad deal.
No, you are wrong here. First, you're trying to introduce a false dichotomy as if 'proprietary' and 'non-free' are different somehow. Second, 'non-free' is *always* a bad choice. > One must decide what the software will do, and if it is worth the price. Please define 'price' in this context. > Let us remember that many-- perhaps most--users of the Linux os are > not programmers, and cannot take advantage of software being > open-source. Probably. But any free software user can take advantage of the ability to run free software any way for any purpose. And it does not require one to be a programmer :) Confusing 'open-source' with 'free software' is a common mistake. > Among programs which are not open and not free are several CAD programs That's hardly everyone's necessity. > and at least one office suite. That Chineese one, or M$ one? > I'm sure there are others. Reco
