The thrust of this blog has been an attempt to use Linux in the same way one would use Windows or Mac OS, which is to say, without using the command line. Nothing makes people's eyes glaze over more quickly than the very words "command line," no matter which type of computer you're using. I recently showed my father-in-law the bash shell on his three-year-old MacBook, and he had no clue what it is or what it does. When Windows 95 took hold of the computing world, it was a while before I found that the "MS/DOS" icon opens the command window that works like it always did in the pre-GUI days of the late eighties. In any case, the command line is where Linux truly works, and all the mousing and clicking is really only issuing commands to the shell, the Unix/Linux term for the command line interface.
For all of the Linux distributions I've encountered, bash (the Bourne Again Shell) is the default shell (there are others that I haven't explored yet). I'll mention here that bash is a program developed for the GNU operating system, which, along with the Linux kernel, constitutes GNU/Linux, or what many call simply "Linux." A shell is simply a program that allows a human being to interface with the computer, manage files, perform tasks, and so on. To use the shell, you type in a command (input) and the shell performs the command and provides feedback (output) or simply returns to the command prompt, which lets you know that the command worked and all is well. If something goes wrong, it lets you know that too by giving you (usually comprehensible) error messages. That's about it. Once you know a set of basic commands, you can navigate through your files in a more hands-on and precise way than is possible from a graphical interface. It's a little like driving a car with a stick shift after only driving an automatic. You have much more control, but there's a steep learning curve and you're in for a bumpy ride for a while.
The other main thing to learn about Linux that you can only do effectively (in my view) from the shell is the directory structure. At first this is a little overwhelming, but since it is set up in a standard, orderly hierarchy, you'll soon learn what it is you're looking at. Finally, when you have learned some commands and get your bearings, you can learn the true meaning of "open source" since you can view the source code of all the programs you have installed. Of course, at that point you'd want some understanding of programming languages, and I'm not much help there at this point!
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Monday, July 28, 2008
A Non-insider's Guide to Free and Open Source Software
For years I have been using and, in some cases, promoting "open source" software, but until a few months ago, I really couldn't have told you what is really behind that idea. I knew vaguely what it is - that the source code for a certain software program is "open" (available) and can be copied and improved upon by anyone who wants to. And that's good, right? But since neither I nor anyone I know actually would delve into the source code (at least not at this point), what does it matter? Windows, Office, and Adobe Reader all work, even though they don't share their source codes, so why should an end user (that's you) care? From a practical point of view, there are not that many compelling reasons, but I'll try to lay out what "Free" and "open source" mean and why they might just matter to you after all.
A Nutshell History - Free Software and GNU
In the 1970s, long before everybody had computers in their homes, computers were confined to university research centers, and software was free and shared for the most part. Two future figures in personal computing came out of this era with opposite impressions. Bill Gates, frustrated by the idea that software was being shared among computer enthusiasts without payment to the software creators (known as "pirating" software), wrote an open letter saying so, in which you can see the seeds of the Microsoft business model.
Richard Stallman, on the other hand, became frustrated that people were putting restrictive licenses on what was previously open and shared software, and in response to this, he created the Free Software Foundation, which still advances the cause of Free Software. Stallman's greatest innovation is the intellectual property workaround of "copyleft," in which a program's creator copyrights the source code, then releases the source code and program with the condition that it must remain Free and shared and that any modifications to it must also be shared in turn, preventing anyone from taking, say, the Linux kernel, changing the code, then copyrighting that code to make millions of dollars. This concept has been codified in what is known as the "GNU General Public License" or "GPL," which led to the Linux/Open Source revolution as much as anything else.
If you are interested in Richard Stallman's ideas about this, peruse the GNU Project website. It is worth mentioning that what is normally referred to as "Linux" is actually just as much Richard Stallman's GNU system (hence some distributions' insistence on calling it "GNU/Linux") - unfortunately for Stallman, "Linux" is a much catchier, if not quite accurate, name.
"Open Source" Software
In the late 90s, as Linux began to take hold as a viable alternative to proprietary software, Free Software advocates began attempting to shop their software programs to the business world. Given the political stances of the Free Software movement, and the inherent trouble of describing software as "free" to people interested in making money, several Free Software figures got together and formed the Open Source Definition, which was based largely on Debian's Free Software Guidelines. This new term (to which Richard Stallman strongly objects) gave businesses a way to extol the practical benefits of free software without having to negotiate the ambiguous (and potentially loaded) term "free." Unfortunately, "open source" is also ambiguous enough to lead to situations where companies may release their source code (making it "open"), but will attach a number of caveats about its use and redistribution that are not at all in line with the Free Software movements goals (or those of the Open Source Initiative for that matter).
"Freeware", "Shareware", and Other Confusions
To add a large dose of confusion to what is already a complicated topic, there are many software programs out there on the Web which are free to use, but are not Free or Open Source software. These programs will often use terms like "freeware" or "shareware" in their descriptions, which to the untutored eye all look the same. Browsers like Internet Explorer or Safari, or programs like iTunes, Adobe Reader, or VMWare, are all free to download and use under certain conditions. There is also a growing number of free (of cost) web-based services that have come to define the idea of "Web 2.0"-style computer usage, like Google Documents, PBWiki, and even Blogger (which I use to host this blog). These are not Free Software in the "free as in speech," Open Source Definition/GPL sense. As Free Software advocates continually have to explain, the "Free" is about "freedom", not cost, and these "pseudo-free" programs have ulterior motives when they don't charge for their use (mainly advertising).
How to Tell if Your Software is Free
Now that I've laid out what's Free and what isn't, how do you tell? Here are a few characteristics of non-Free software:
It's All About Choices
Just like in your grocery-shopping, software choices matter. Most of the time (at least to my palate) conventionally-grown brocolli tastes the same as organically-grown brocolli, so why spend the extra money? I buy organic fruits and vegetables (when possible) because I know (or trust) that my body doesn't need the extra chemicals and pesticides that are used in conventional factory farming nowdays. Free and Open Source software are similar, in that you know that you can use conventional corporate software solutions with all of their caveats and insidious advertising, or your can use Free and Open Source software, which guarantee your freedoms to use and share it as you see fit, without any ulterior motive. You can argue that they "taste the same", but isn't an extra glance at the EULA worth the effort?
A Nutshell History - Free Software and GNU
In the 1970s, long before everybody had computers in their homes, computers were confined to university research centers, and software was free and shared for the most part. Two future figures in personal computing came out of this era with opposite impressions. Bill Gates, frustrated by the idea that software was being shared among computer enthusiasts without payment to the software creators (known as "pirating" software), wrote an open letter saying so, in which you can see the seeds of the Microsoft business model.
Richard Stallman, on the other hand, became frustrated that people were putting restrictive licenses on what was previously open and shared software, and in response to this, he created the Free Software Foundation, which still advances the cause of Free Software. Stallman's greatest innovation is the intellectual property workaround of "copyleft," in which a program's creator copyrights the source code, then releases the source code and program with the condition that it must remain Free and shared and that any modifications to it must also be shared in turn, preventing anyone from taking, say, the Linux kernel, changing the code, then copyrighting that code to make millions of dollars. This concept has been codified in what is known as the "GNU General Public License" or "GPL," which led to the Linux/Open Source revolution as much as anything else.
If you are interested in Richard Stallman's ideas about this, peruse the GNU Project website. It is worth mentioning that what is normally referred to as "Linux" is actually just as much Richard Stallman's GNU system (hence some distributions' insistence on calling it "GNU/Linux") - unfortunately for Stallman, "Linux" is a much catchier, if not quite accurate, name.
"Open Source" Software
In the late 90s, as Linux began to take hold as a viable alternative to proprietary software, Free Software advocates began attempting to shop their software programs to the business world. Given the political stances of the Free Software movement, and the inherent trouble of describing software as "free" to people interested in making money, several Free Software figures got together and formed the Open Source Definition, which was based largely on Debian's Free Software Guidelines. This new term (to which Richard Stallman strongly objects) gave businesses a way to extol the practical benefits of free software without having to negotiate the ambiguous (and potentially loaded) term "free." Unfortunately, "open source" is also ambiguous enough to lead to situations where companies may release their source code (making it "open"), but will attach a number of caveats about its use and redistribution that are not at all in line with the Free Software movements goals (or those of the Open Source Initiative for that matter).
"Freeware", "Shareware", and Other Confusions
To add a large dose of confusion to what is already a complicated topic, there are many software programs out there on the Web which are free to use, but are not Free or Open Source software. These programs will often use terms like "freeware" or "shareware" in their descriptions, which to the untutored eye all look the same. Browsers like Internet Explorer or Safari, or programs like iTunes, Adobe Reader, or VMWare, are all free to download and use under certain conditions. There is also a growing number of free (of cost) web-based services that have come to define the idea of "Web 2.0"-style computer usage, like Google Documents, PBWiki, and even Blogger (which I use to host this blog). These are not Free Software in the "free as in speech," Open Source Definition/GPL sense. As Free Software advocates continually have to explain, the "Free" is about "freedom", not cost, and these "pseudo-free" programs have ulterior motives when they don't charge for their use (mainly advertising).
How to Tell if Your Software is Free
Now that I've laid out what's Free and what isn't, how do you tell? Here are a few characteristics of non-Free software:
- A restrictive End User License Agreement (EULA) - a quick glance should tell you - you will see a lot of "You may not . . ." language.
- Many non-Free programs will attempt to slip in extra software (like the Yahoo! or Google browser toolbars that track your internet usage and provide advertisers with whatever personal information you don't explicitly "opt out" of)
- You may see advertisements appear during the installation process
- You may have to enter your personal information to "register" your product or use a product key to be able to use the product
It's All About Choices
Just like in your grocery-shopping, software choices matter. Most of the time (at least to my palate) conventionally-grown brocolli tastes the same as organically-grown brocolli, so why spend the extra money? I buy organic fruits and vegetables (when possible) because I know (or trust) that my body doesn't need the extra chemicals and pesticides that are used in conventional factory farming nowdays. Free and Open Source software are similar, in that you know that you can use conventional corporate software solutions with all of their caveats and insidious advertising, or your can use Free and Open Source software, which guarantee your freedoms to use and share it as you see fit, without any ulterior motive. You can argue that they "taste the same", but isn't an extra glance at the EULA worth the effort?
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Free as in Kittens
I've talked so far about software freedom as in speech and as in beer. Today my topic is the kind of "free" that people view as a burden, the example being "free kittens." This is the meaning of "free" that keeps many regular, reasonable computer users from adopting (or perhaps even trying) free software solutions for everyday needs. Free kittens are free of charge initially, yes, but that doesn't include the monetary costs of vet care, food, or replacing clawed up furniture. The word "free" here also doesn't include intangible costs like time spent training the kitten, cleaning up after her, having her keep you awake at night, and the like (can you tell I speak from experience?). We learn as adults that many so-called "free" things are not really free, since the costs of ownership outweigh the benefits.
A big reason that people pay for software is so they have someone else accountable when things go wrong, which as Mr. Murphy has taught us, they always will. That accountability is obviously worth millions (just ask the recently-retired Bill Gates, age 52). The sense of "getting what you've paid for" also provides much of the basis for Microsoft's infamous "Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt" (FUD) strategy that was revealed in the leaked "Halloween Documents" in the late 1990s. From this perspective, it's easy to say that free software is "not really free," since you can't call anybody when it breaks.
In an earlier post, I addressed how tech support is usually provided in the GNU/Linux/Free/Open Source community. Through online forums and IRC channels, users have great access to support from fellow users - people just like you who use a computer just like you who've had problems just like yours, not someone getting paid pennies to answer a phone and pretend like they care. As anyone who's sat on hold waiting for a tech support person, or sifting through hundreds of "knowledge base" articles that almost-but-not-quite address the problem, knows, "support" in this case is often not very supportive. Since Linux is community-driven, you're bound to find someone to help you with your problem, because we've all been there!
So what's the counter-argument to the charge of free software being "free as in kittens?" First of all, most cat owners will tell you that the kitten stage is worth the effort. I mean, we're all adults here, right (unless you're not :-))? Does anybody who's actually lived real life believe that anything is really free in this sense? Does having the "right" to call tech support 24/7 and sit on hold being told by recordings that your time is valuable really constitute peace of mind? I don't think so, but I'm also kind of a sold-out believer in free/open source software at this point and I know from experience that I can pretty easily find solutions to problems.
The main point to make at the end of the discussion is (to paraphrase Richard Stallman), "think free speech, not free kittens." Free software is not about monetary cost, it's about having the freedom to use and share software for the benefit and enjoyment of all. Have a happy Fourth of July and make sure to download some free-as-in-speech software this weekend! Be brave and build it from source!
***[Fireworks, Star Spangled Banner playing]***
A big reason that people pay for software is so they have someone else accountable when things go wrong, which as Mr. Murphy has taught us, they always will. That accountability is obviously worth millions (just ask the recently-retired Bill Gates, age 52). The sense of "getting what you've paid for" also provides much of the basis for Microsoft's infamous "Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt" (FUD) strategy that was revealed in the leaked "Halloween Documents" in the late 1990s. From this perspective, it's easy to say that free software is "not really free," since you can't call anybody when it breaks.
In an earlier post, I addressed how tech support is usually provided in the GNU/Linux/Free/Open Source community. Through online forums and IRC channels, users have great access to support from fellow users - people just like you who use a computer just like you who've had problems just like yours, not someone getting paid pennies to answer a phone and pretend like they care. As anyone who's sat on hold waiting for a tech support person, or sifting through hundreds of "knowledge base" articles that almost-but-not-quite address the problem, knows, "support" in this case is often not very supportive. Since Linux is community-driven, you're bound to find someone to help you with your problem, because we've all been there!
So what's the counter-argument to the charge of free software being "free as in kittens?" First of all, most cat owners will tell you that the kitten stage is worth the effort. I mean, we're all adults here, right (unless you're not :-))? Does anybody who's actually lived real life believe that anything is really free in this sense? Does having the "right" to call tech support 24/7 and sit on hold being told by recordings that your time is valuable really constitute peace of mind? I don't think so, but I'm also kind of a sold-out believer in free/open source software at this point and I know from experience that I can pretty easily find solutions to problems.
The main point to make at the end of the discussion is (to paraphrase Richard Stallman), "think free speech, not free kittens." Free software is not about monetary cost, it's about having the freedom to use and share software for the benefit and enjoyment of all. Have a happy Fourth of July and make sure to download some free-as-in-speech software this weekend! Be brave and build it from source!
***[Fireworks, Star Spangled Banner playing]***
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Free as in Beer!
As I mentioned in my last Independence Day post, most free software is free in the monetary sense of the word ("gratis"), which can be a hindrance to those of us who are trying our best to emphasize the "freedom-as-in-liberty" sense of free software to those who don't yet understand. To your average computer user, "free" usually means "free to download," and that category includes many programs that no one in the Free Software world would consider free in the "liberty" sense (here's an FSF page with some definitions of these variants). And even when people download software licensed under the GPL and its variants, they don't notice that difference because they click right by the EULA in every case. And let's face it - most computer users aren't philosophical about software - they just need a program or OS that works so they can get things done (be that work or play).
One of Richard Stallman's memorable and concise ways of making the "free" distinction is to say "think free speech, not free beer." The problem with the term "free software" seems to be that many users can't think past the "free-as-in-beer" quality (or perhaps "free-as-in-cheap" or "free-as-in-kittens" - my next topic!). But let's think for a second about why that is, and how we advocates and defenders of software freedom might use it to our advantage. This software is (almost always) free of charge. When I go out looking for a Linux distribution or a software solution, I don't go to a shopping site. I look in the Ubuntu repositories for a program I know I can use without buying it or I go to a download mirror. Isn't there value in this quality of free software? Can't we enjoy free speech and free beer? (I can really appreciate free beer, can't you?)
Of course, I'm not advocating not caring about freedom-as-in-speech. I'm a librarian and have worked for years in a world were everything's free-as-in-speech, but I also advocate the enjoyment of that shared freedom. Just like the library, the freedom of free software is something all of us can use, share, and enjoy. (And in the case of free software, you don't even need a picture ID and proof of residency!) :-) Let's enjoy it!
One of Richard Stallman's memorable and concise ways of making the "free" distinction is to say "think free speech, not free beer." The problem with the term "free software" seems to be that many users can't think past the "free-as-in-beer" quality (or perhaps "free-as-in-cheap" or "free-as-in-kittens" - my next topic!). But let's think for a second about why that is, and how we advocates and defenders of software freedom might use it to our advantage. This software is (almost always) free of charge. When I go out looking for a Linux distribution or a software solution, I don't go to a shopping site. I look in the Ubuntu repositories for a program I know I can use without buying it or I go to a download mirror. Isn't there value in this quality of free software? Can't we enjoy free speech and free beer? (I can really appreciate free beer, can't you?)
Of course, I'm not advocating not caring about freedom-as-in-speech. I'm a librarian and have worked for years in a world were everything's free-as-in-speech, but I also advocate the enjoyment of that shared freedom. Just like the library, the freedom of free software is something all of us can use, share, and enjoy. (And in the case of free software, you don't even need a picture ID and proof of residency!) :-) Let's enjoy it!
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Partitioning Hard Drives - My Experiences
When I got into all this Linux business, I was very intimidated by the thought of installing Debian onto what amounted to a throw-away PC that nobody needed. The only way I was ever going to install Linux on my main PC before about six months ago was to purchase a second hard-drive so I could leave my current configuration (aside from the Master Boot Record - which we'll get to shortly) alone. Even recently, when a library co-worker mentioned a desire to dual-boot on a laptop with a single hard drive, the very idea of partitioning a drive was scary and unknown to me. Now I've done it twice, and it was quite easy (maybe too easy).
I recently began a new job, and when the IT guy gave me my work laptop, he mentioned that I was welcome to resize the Windows partition and install Linux (WOW - I didn't even have to ask! In my last job the systems guy quailed at the idea of putting Linux on a web server!). I smiled and gulped and decided to get to it. By the end of the evening, I had installed Ubuntu on my work laptop and all was well.
Next, my wife just got a Windows-based computer, and we off-loaded her data from my desktop and deleted her Windows XP profile, which then allowed me to consider shrinking the Windows partition and use the space for Ubuntu (I later ended up using it for Kubuntu). This was a little more involved than it was the first time since I used a Live CD program called GParted (Gnome Partition Editor) to resize the Windows partition. Then with the freed space, I installed Kubuntu.
Since both of these experiences were successful, I'll make up a simple guide for my next post.
I recently began a new job, and when the IT guy gave me my work laptop, he mentioned that I was welcome to resize the Windows partition and install Linux (WOW - I didn't even have to ask! In my last job the systems guy quailed at the idea of putting Linux on a web server!). I smiled and gulped and decided to get to it. By the end of the evening, I had installed Ubuntu on my work laptop and all was well.
Next, my wife just got a Windows-based computer, and we off-loaded her data from my desktop and deleted her Windows XP profile, which then allowed me to consider shrinking the Windows partition and use the space for Ubuntu (I later ended up using it for Kubuntu). This was a little more involved than it was the first time since I used a Live CD program called GParted (Gnome Partition Editor) to resize the Windows partition. Then with the freed space, I installed Kubuntu.
Since both of these experiences were successful, I'll make up a simple guide for my next post.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Taking a Closer Look at KDE
I actually have a lot to report, but I'll have to get to it bit by bit in more than one post. For the moment I'll stick to one topic - my renewed interest in the K Desktop Environment (KDE). To review, Linux distributions can come with different desktop environments, even if the same file structure lies underneath. This is a very foreign concept to users of computer systems like Windows or Mac (which is like, everybody) that might allow you to change things like fonts and color schemes, but if you really want your computer to look and act a different way you have to buy a new computer (or at least upgrade operating systems). In Linux, there are choices that are just not present in proprietary software programs.
As faithful readers of my blog may recall, I added KDE to my regular Ubuntu installation, just to give it a test drive. Since I have so far generally preferred Ubuntu's default desktop environment (called Gnome), I didn't want to keep KDE and all of its many programs installed, so I worked tirelessly for a few days to remove it. I have since been satisfied with Gnome and KDE just hasn't been on my radar until several things happened over the last couple of weeks.
First of all, my poor Ubuntu laptop, which my wife had claimed as hers, died a pitiful death as it gave me chilling messages like "kernel panic!" Fortunately (miraculously), I was able to save much of my wife's data - she's a student so there was a lot of important information on there. (Take this as a cautionary tale to back up your data regularly!) As a replacement, we bought a new laptop running Windows Vista, which meant I was able to offload my wife's Windows data from my desktop and shrink the Windows partition (the mechanics of which I will note later). After some thought about how to use the freed disk space, and some conversations with a new co-worker who prefers KDE, I decided to install Kubuntu, which is Ubuntu with KDE as the native desktop environment.
Here's a screenshot of my new desktop:
I've decided I'm going to try and live and work in KDE for a while, just to get to know it better. I'm told it's the favorite of many Linux users, including Linux kernel author Linus Torvalds. I'd say that's a pretty good recommendation!
I'll report more as I form opinions about it.
As faithful readers of my blog may recall, I added KDE to my regular Ubuntu installation, just to give it a test drive. Since I have so far generally preferred Ubuntu's default desktop environment (called Gnome), I didn't want to keep KDE and all of its many programs installed, so I worked tirelessly for a few days to remove it. I have since been satisfied with Gnome and KDE just hasn't been on my radar until several things happened over the last couple of weeks.
First of all, my poor Ubuntu laptop, which my wife had claimed as hers, died a pitiful death as it gave me chilling messages like "kernel panic!" Fortunately (miraculously), I was able to save much of my wife's data - she's a student so there was a lot of important information on there. (Take this as a cautionary tale to back up your data regularly!) As a replacement, we bought a new laptop running Windows Vista, which meant I was able to offload my wife's Windows data from my desktop and shrink the Windows partition (the mechanics of which I will note later). After some thought about how to use the freed disk space, and some conversations with a new co-worker who prefers KDE, I decided to install Kubuntu, which is Ubuntu with KDE as the native desktop environment.
Here's a screenshot of my new desktop:
I've decided I'm going to try and live and work in KDE for a while, just to get to know it better. I'm told it's the favorite of many Linux users, including Linux kernel author Linus Torvalds. I'd say that's a pretty good recommendation!
I'll report more as I form opinions about it.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Free as in Speech
With Independence Day coming up, I want to do a series of posts about freedom and what "free software" actually means. The English language is weak in the area of freedom, so when somebody says "free software" they think "free of charge" or "gratis" (to use the Latin term for the concept), which can really throw you, since most free software is available to anyone without monetary cost. If you have a CD drive with writing capability (which is standard on any computer made in the last four or five years) and a blank 700 MB CD, you can zip over to Ubuntu's download page right this minute, download the CD image, burn it to your disc, restart your computer with the disc in the drive*, and voila! You can either install or just use Ubuntu with the Live CD within 20 - 30 minutes for no charge beyond what you spent on the CD itself. That's free.
But that's still not what "free" means in the term "free software." This sort of "free" means "unfettered" or "free as in liberty" - it's what "free" means in "free speech." Or what the word "independence" means in "Independence Day." You're free to use this software in the way you see fit, as long as that way doesn't involve taking that same freedom away from others. It's free like a public library is free. It's ours not mine or yours. Corporate software companies make their millions on keeping their software locked down and "non-free" in this sense. Every end user license agreement that we click through going "yeah, yeah, I know" is restricting how we use the software we just paid for. It's more of a rental situation, like renting a Blockbuster DVD except a lot more expensive.
For example, if you purchase a copy of Windows Vista for your desktop, and decide you'd also like to install it on your laptop, you are not allowed to do that without buying it again. You just shelled out $130.00 and have the Vista installation disk in your hand, a disk you presume to "own," but you are not allowed to put it on another machine without buying it again. This is not freedom in the way any of us expect it to work. It would be like buying a book to keep on your bedside table and being told that you can't read it in the living room without buying it again.
On the other hand, with the Ubuntu disk you just downloaded for free, you can, without paying anyone or without asking or needing to wonder if you just broke the law, install it on any computer you want. Now that's freedom!
*The boot order in your BIOS settings has to be set to boot from CD before the hard disk.
But that's still not what "free" means in the term "free software." This sort of "free" means "unfettered" or "free as in liberty" - it's what "free" means in "free speech." Or what the word "independence" means in "Independence Day." You're free to use this software in the way you see fit, as long as that way doesn't involve taking that same freedom away from others. It's free like a public library is free. It's ours not mine or yours. Corporate software companies make their millions on keeping their software locked down and "non-free" in this sense. Every end user license agreement that we click through going "yeah, yeah, I know" is restricting how we use the software we just paid for. It's more of a rental situation, like renting a Blockbuster DVD except a lot more expensive.
For example, if you purchase a copy of Windows Vista for your desktop, and decide you'd also like to install it on your laptop, you are not allowed to do that without buying it again. You just shelled out $130.00 and have the Vista installation disk in your hand, a disk you presume to "own," but you are not allowed to put it on another machine without buying it again. This is not freedom in the way any of us expect it to work. It would be like buying a book to keep on your bedside table and being told that you can't read it in the living room without buying it again.
On the other hand, with the Ubuntu disk you just downloaded for free, you can, without paying anyone or without asking or needing to wonder if you just broke the law, install it on any computer you want. Now that's freedom!
*The boot order in your BIOS settings has to be set to boot from CD before the hard disk.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)