wpostma said:I'm not saying people "want" to mess with source, or that they "should".
Simply that what is good is that computers remain accessible, and open, not opaque black boxes.
I guess that makes me a "Hacker" in the old MIT/BSD sense. {I am not a hacker in the sense of the word where it means someone who breaks into computers. bah.}
Warren
No, more importantly, you essentially called anyone who doesn't want to go to the hassle of running an open source OS a consumer, and implied they were stupid.
If I was a musician, or a doctor, or a geologist, for example and wanted to run, say Ableton Live, or Surpac on my machine to do my job, it is easier to just run the app on the platform it is supported on.
It doesn't make me stupid, it just means I waste less time faffing about with the platform and more time doing the job I'm paid to do. My friend for example is a paramedic. They run iPads out in the field, because that's the device that runs the app they use. Is he/they stupid? No, it's just a tool to do a job. It's not a religous/idealogical issue.
Don't get me wrong. I'm all for open platforms when it is appropriate, and comparable open alternatives exist. But having a go at people who run Windows or Mac OS or whatever because thats what platform supports the application(s) they need to run is a bit unfair. The simple fact is that not all software runs on FreeBSD or Linux or any other open platform. In some niche purposes, it is very unlikely there will ever be an open alternative.
Operating systems are a commodity these days. Run the one that runs your software.
If there's an open alternative, great. But don't compromise the maintainability, stability and ease of deployment of the application for the sake of the stability or open-ness of your OS, because you'll lose far more than you gain.