38 votes

Why I dropped Microsoft products like a bad habit and won't be going back - A Lesson in Freedom

Well I did it. I finally pulled the plug on Microsoft and erased clean their proprietary nature that represents not freedom, but the very proprietary nature of a closed system.

Sure, it has created a boom, complete with anti trust behavior and accounting gimmicks. Yah, it created a few millionaires that used to be the envy as they drove around in the Vipers by 35. Yah it fueled the real estate market, I mean everybody should own 5 houses and drive up the costs of real estate for everybody, including senior citizens and their 5 acre horse properties that saw 17 percent increases in property tax once upon a time, forcing many from their properties, being on the fixed income.

Yah, it created jobs, to the extent that the unskilled peoples of this country, coming from public education, could not obtain work there.

Yah it is true that you could get on with a temp agency, without healthcare....but these are just a few pieces of anectodal evidence of the mirage.

If Microsoft is the Oasis, what is Globalism?

I made the bold move to rid myself of their proprietary nature that did not represent freedom, but rather built in manipulation, vulnerabilities, ongoing problems, and no resolution, but total control. I saw enough. I broke the mold. No more updates. See ya. No need for their products.

Solution? Linux.

Open Source for me was a solution. It allowed me to realize alternatives, one that does not fund globalism, the modern day eugenics movement, or elitism.

The end result of the profits stuck out like a sore thumb, all that profit that is being pilfered from society is being hoarded into elitist ties, under the guise of philanthropy and humanisitic causes.

Well I can see through that, from those that wish to play god as they continue down their dangerous path of Globalism and social engineering.

I could no longer support it. I took that step and so should many others if they even care.

I can no longer pay to play for their fake caste system, where they get involved in things that they should not, be it Common Core or vaccination programs in Africa. Sounds good, but against the will of parents?

So enough was enough. I pulled the plug. No more left wing cowardice hiding behind Progressive Agendas that are really as evil as Hitler Germany. The fake caste system, the importation of foreign workers to the detriment of US citizens and taxpayers, and the usuary of the public education system to tell the dummies that they lack in skills and fail in math and science to me, is really just a lie or another way of saying that they don't want critical thinkers, that they want compliant worker drones, or they will import others to finalize their Global Agenda and create a fake monetary stream based around not consistency and quality of a product, but rather a built in system that further creates social disparities, that of the have and have nots.

So to combat that, I made a move for freedom. I dropped Windows like a bad habit.

There is another world out there. There is real competition. There is capitalism. There is freedom of choice. There is privacy where others work with the NSA.

Learning both systems, cutting my teeth on Windows, and then rolling over to Linux took some getting used to, but I had to stay with it.

One by one, I want others to get up and take a look at the politics that hide behind this company and their products. Yah XBox is cool. Doesn't mean that I will buy that product again. Halo is a badass game, too bad it probably contributes to many greater problems in society, but I won't hold Microbaby to that one here, although there is probably some truth to it.

So on the personal computer market, I say roll it over now. On the hand helds, roll it over now. Make that move to Linux. Consider the phones that Linux sells if your into that. But bring competition, innovation, and freedom to market.....versus proprietary market where they think they can reap insane profits and devour economies because people don't know any better.

A person should be able to be whatever they want to be when they grow up. But these companies and their HR departments control the market and force feed the market and the credentialism and then say Americans lack the skills they require. Well at that point, it is time to cut them off for good.

I'm not sure where to go with my newly found skills. I mean it would be nice to help others roll over, one PC at a time, perhaps find a company that would welcome this, as I want to help others with taking back their freedom. Others are out to subvert freedom with their Global Agenda and they act childish in this endeavor to the extent that they are arrogant about it and act like they own the football, and if you don't like it, they will leave the game and take the football with them. So be it.

That is if you want to play that game, and watch it play out via public education.

The next question is, with this open system found, that of Linux, how can one create opportunity to further bring competition to market? Are there any arenas out there that feel the same and would team up to take on social engineers to take on those that would erode society for their ill gotten gains based on proprietary software? If so, let me know. I want to get back on the roles of healthcare to deal with a medical condition. Obamacare isn't going to help. Obamacare and the globalists have created the problems and forced it. Now we must circle back and put an end to it, and bring competition, solutions, services, and freedom to market.
At least that's why I did it.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Open source is awesome, and I support Linux

But to say that anything proprietary is anti-freedom is extremist and dangerous. If I make something it is mine. If I don't want to release all my secrets, that's completely within my rights. Expecting all software to be open source is akin to asking all food manufacturers to release perfect proportion recipes with every last ingredient. It's anti-competitive, anti-capitalism, and completely spits in the face of freedom.

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

A chef should have no issue giving out a recipe.

It's not the ingredients and proportions and directions that make a dish, it's the experience and skill of the one combining and cooking them.

If you were correct, chefs wouldn't sell cookbooks.

The same goes for adult drinks.

The recipe for a margarita is no secret. You don't have to buy it each time you want to make it, or pay royalties when you sell one.

But that doesn't mean there isn't plenty of room for market competition in who can make the best one and be handsomely compensated for doing so.

Wait, what?

You really aren't making any sense at all. Yes, it is the ingredients and proportions and directions that make a dish. Lol. You think that, because a guy's been cooking for 15 years, he has some magic dust in his touch or something? You're crazy man. The experience gives you the knowledge to create more, better recipes on your own, it does not change physics.

If you were correct, chefs wouldn't sell cookbooks. It's insane to try to say that to ME. Think about it. I am saying that information has value, you are saying it should be free. Well cookbooks aren't usually free. So what the hell? Did you even give this argument ANY thought?

And yeah, the same does go for adult drinks. You're insane if you think that every drink is just public knowledge! The exact proportions and ingredients are some of the most closely guarded secrets in the world. You can create your own, generic ass margarita, but you cannot have an authentic ass Señor Frogs margarita unless you pick your lazy ass up and go to Mexico!

The recipe for many things is an EXTREMELY closely guarded secret. The exact proportions and recipe for specific margaritas IS a trade secret that you CANNOT get the information about. Your example of cook books only PROVES my point. It is VALUABLE information, people will PAY for it, and to force a chef (or a software engineer, or the maker of any product/holder of any trade secret) to divulge that information for free against their will is evil.

Withholding that information does not restrict your freedom or put you in danger, you just want to know. And you want to know so badly that you are willing to put a gun in their face and say "you have to give us your recipe" and then you have the hypocrisy to say it's in the name of freedom!

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

You obviously don't cook much, or ever bartended.

You are beyond "off base" on your assumptions.

I'll reply later to specifics, I have a family to go cook for and some cocktails to make.

Open source is about as

Open source is about as free-market as you can get.

But remember if you make something and open source it, it is still yours. Don't confuse open source with being anti-copyright. Almost all open source licenses require copyright. The only exception (although I'm sure there may be others) that I know of where this isn't the case is Public Domain in which you forfeit all rights.

I agree, proprietary software isn't necessarily anti-freedom in practice (by definition). But it is anti-free in and of itself, and an unknown. Does the license grant you total ownership? Can you change it if you don't like it? Do you control it? Do you know what it's doing?

Proprietary will always be an option, but open source / free software is the only guarantee of freedom.

For me to release proprietary

For me to release proprietary software in no way restricts your freedom. That is an indefensible position. If anything, I am increasing your freedom. Without me, you would not have the freedom to choose between using or not using my software.

Claiming that now that I created it, I have a responsibility to tell everyone how to create it as well, or else I'm "restricting your freedom" is about the same as me claiming that you have to let me kill you because I want to, and that's part of my freedom.

That's not how liberty works. Obviously, your freedom to live trumps my freedom to kill you. Your freedom ends where another's begins. You absolutely do not have any right to someone's else's recipes, trade secrets, source code, etc.

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

I never made a claim that you

I never made a claim that you must release source code. I don't think anyone is. If you don't want to, that's your right.

"...proprietary software in no way restricts your freedom."

But it does. That is the very definition of proprietary. Sure, you can release it and as long as it sits there untouched it doesn't violate freedom. But that's a ridiculous expectation, and not an intention. Once used, proprietary/unsourced software is by its nature and very definition a violation of a users freedom.

In the world of freedom you are constantly making compromises. We all do. Even most open-source licenses requires a compromise of some level of freedom (and there are open-source but not free-software licenses). But just remember software is controlling more and more of our lives everyday. Eventually it be the way we interface and control most, if not all, of our lives thoughts and actions.

While it may seem trivial to demand software freedom now (the right to know, understand, and control), if we don't now it may one day be too far out of our power to do so. Controlling software will eventually be more important than controlling the political, monetary, or any other system. Whoever controls the software will control our lives.

No, the definition of

No, the definition of proprietary code is not "something that restricts freedom". You have a very warped (and flat out wrong) idea of what freedom is. I reiterate the fact that there is no logical difference between claiming proprietary software restricts your freedom and claiming that rape being illegal restricts your freedom.

With a programmer's actions, you have the freedom to use (or not use) their software. With a programmer's non-actions, you have no more or less freedom than before. This CANNOT be defined as taking away freedom by any sane and sober individual.

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

Garan's picture

Any Program/Tool Anyone Creates and Doesn't Share is Proprietary

..and is private. Power to the People and themselves.

So, I agree.

Are you contending that if

Are you contending that if software is shared it should be open source?

I think copyright laws go too far in some ways, especially recent attempts to control how you use even your hardware. Once you buy something you should be able to modify it as you see fit, as long as you don't use the result to defame the original creator. However, I think that a original creator has the total right to choose whether or not to release something as open source (thereby making it much easier to successfully modify it).

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

true its just a matter of

true
its just a matter of going trhough the process...

Be Your Own Media!!!

Thanks for asking to most contoversal question in Linux.

Choosing a desktop environment is not as straight forward as it should be. But here is the opinion of someone in the know. I've been working with Linux since the beginning. My first Linux machine was an old DEC machine that came with IBM's AIX OS. Wanting more at the time I turned that machine into a dial-up router using FreeSCO. And it was love at first sight.

For new users coming from Windows there is only one easy choice for a customizable Windows 7 like interface: "Linux Mint 13 MATE" The MATE desktop is a modern continuation of the Gnome2 desktop. If you want easy multiple monitor support then it will get no easier then MATE.

Cinnamon is an interesting alternative to Gnome3. This is just as usable as MATE but still under heavy development. If you have a new machine this may be worth a try if you want a 3D desktop.

KDE has come along way and is a flagship desktop environment that makes for a pretty Windows replacement.

Gnome2 was the most popular desktop in use for many years but, Gnome3 has caused allot of friction. Ubuntu created Unity as an html5 replacement to Gnome3 and has also caused allot of friction. That said Unity is much better today then is was three years ago and the HUD environment has grown on me. Gnome3 is no where near prime time and should be avoided by the inexperienced.

XFCE and LXDE are popular alternatives that are widely believed to be lighter and faster then the alternatives. In my experience this is no longer true. Now they are known for missing features. Like a simple global search feature similar to the search bar in the Windows Start Menu. If coming from Windows XP it will be familiar enough to use comfortably.

The smallest and fastest desktops are the ones that merge the functionality of the Desktop Environment with the Window Manager like Openbox or FVWM. This is more important when running old hardware without a 3D accelerator.

Desktop speed is more distribution dependent then desktop dependent. Since it's the Kernel, Window Manager and miscellaneous startup processes that will dictate how many resources are needed.

While Windows is a one size fits all approach and Apple has focused on a one size fits one approach. Linux has a more democratic approach with as many solutions as there are ideas. This site is not big enough to get into all the options and variables. A basic search with Google Images will show the many physical differences. But won't show how you can run KDE applications from a Gnome Desktop on a BSD, Slackware or GNU/Linux system.

Windows Manager Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Window_manager
Desktop Enviroment Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desktop_environment

No one is forcing open source on you

I find it odd that you say promoting open source "spits in the face of freedom", when it is freedom of choice that allows you to have proprietary and open source compete. If you have proprietary software that you can convince people to pay for, good for you. However, you cannot cripple your competition by outlawing free software. If someone wants to give away software that does the same function as yours, then you better have a compelling value proposition to keep your customers. That is free market competition.

There are many examples:

Windows versus Linux
MS Office versus Libreoffice
EndNote versus Zotero
Opera versus Firefox
Matlab versus Octave
Photoshop versus Gimp

Open Source brings MORE free market competition, which results in greater innovation, better products, and lower cost for customers.

We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.

-C. S. Lewis

Wtf?! Who ever said anything

Wtf?! Who ever said anything about outlawing open source software!? What an absurd straw man argument you've assembled.... You are high as a kite!!

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

Touche, sir.

You are astute in your assessment. I am in fact high as a kite.

We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.

-C. S. Lewis

Ah ok then :) Pass it here

Ah ok then :) Pass it here

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

Octave?

Please shoot me in the right direction. I've been using Matlab for years.

Ovtave aims to run the same Matlab code

See: https://www.gnu.org/software/octave/

I've used both, and I say Matlab is better. Octave is harder to install, and is missing some functionality that Matlab has. However, if your software budget is $0, then Octave lets you do a lot for free.

We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.

-C. S. Lewis

Thank You for the link

I'll have to play with it sometime.

I know little about the industry,

but I did a data scraping job for a college professor who was analyzing 2-4 word phrases in congressional speeches. She happened to use R on the data I provided. Here is a comparison I pulled up on startpage:
http://www.math.umaine.edu/~hiebeler/comp/matlabR.pdf
http://www.r-project.org/

I AM is all that is. Everything else is malleable.

I would say more specifically

I would say more specifically that copyright and patents are anti-liberty, anti-competitive, and anti-free market because it is an intervention that restricts the behavior of all other actors in the market. No restrictions would exist in a 100% free market.

Whether or not they are interventions that on balance improve the economy is another matter. It's never been studied in fully industrialized countries since economists started to get halfway decent statistics to analyze, though they have found that economic growth fell slightly when patent duration was raised the last time..

I would say, more

I would say, more specifically, that the very patent rights, as seen held by the Big Pharma, are the root cause of the very healthcare problem we now see before our very eyes.
Often with R&D grants that came from the Federal Government (funded by the taxpayers) causes the race for the patent rights which in turn cause the price escalation in double digit anually, exacerbated further by the cohorts...the insurance industry. 2 Separate schemes going on, being allowed by law, before our very eyes. Is this freedom? Open Source? There lies the solutions, but elimination of freedom of choice and erosion of privacy rights is freedom?

Be Your Own Media!!!

Garan's picture

Generally, you could say..

Many artificial government creations (such as copyright, patents, and corporations), backed up with government force, is anti-competitive and anti-free market.

Business men can't legally impose themselves on others without the help of government force (litigation and such).

I've used all three major

I've used all three major OS's for extended periods. I, personally, will never, ever, ever buy another Apple product ever again. While I'm no fan of Microsoft, Windows (7, not 8, which I refuse to buy) is my preference. If I were to ever switch again (which is becoming a real possiblity), it would without question be to Linux.

Simple Facts and Plain Arguments
A common sense take on politics and current events.

www.simplefactsplainarguments.com

I'm pretty sure I've

I'm pretty sure I've regretted nearly every non-Apple electronic I've purchased, save for a PC I built myself. People should use whatever they feel more comfortable with, but the idea that Apple is overpriced or shoddy is completely wrong.

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

Is Apple shoddy? No, not

Is Apple shoddy? No, not really.

Is Apple overpriced? Good god, most definitely. Talk about paying for a logo.

Simple Facts and Plain Arguments
A common sense take on politics and current events.

www.simplefactsplainarguments.com

Only some things at Apple are overpriced

Apple has a tendency to take a long time to update their systems, thus some of their offerings fall out of date and are overpriced. Also, their monitors and individual part upgrades (RAM, HD, etc) are historically overpriced and I would always recommend getting them elsewhere.

When it comes to the actual computers, they aren't overpriced so much as they just don't have a low end, and come with a lot of stuff most consumers will never need.

When claiming Macs are overpriced I most commonly see comparisons to systems that may work as well for most users, but simply aren't comparable for industry professionals. Specifically, the display built into iMacs is roughly half their cost alone. Yes, the current Mac Pros are (very) long in the tooth, but the new one coming out shocked people with its price. Again, it's a power system, but for a dual-FirePro/Xeon rig, and given the ridiculously impressive size of the thing, it's likely to be a good deal. It will depend of course on the exact specs of the FirePros and the Xeon, but knowing Apple, they will be toward the higher end even on the "low end" Mac Pro, which will make the $3000 a decent value for those who need a powerful workstation, albeit very high for so called "entry" point.

Aside from the noted exceptions though, you'd be hard priced to find an Apple product that isn't extremely competitive at time of launch, but since the systems are pretty much all-inclusive, you won't be able to save money on things you don't want or need. Which is why I built a PC and run OS X Mavericks on it.

I think they would open up a huge market if they had a tower with similar specss to the iMac but a dedicated (and swappable) desktop-grade graphics card. Right now they have tools for servers (Mac Mini), video professionals (Mac Pro), and tools for graphics professionals (iMac and MacBook Pro), and decent "basic user" laptops (The MacBook Air) but they do NOT have anything remotely suited to basic desktop use, and certainly nothing for gaming.

But all in all I feel the aversion to Apple is heavily due to their lack of diversity in their product line. They only have very few products, and they don't have a low-end, so people see a system that has more than they need in most normal situations and assume it's overpriced.

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

compile

A friend at work pointed out to me that if you don't compile the source code yourself, you still wont know if it's been tampered with. His premise was that the major distros could be compromised. It's still possible that you'd compile comprimised code because I mentioned that I don't have years to analyze the code for security holes, but he's right that it would be much much harder to be done in plain sight than behind a pre-compiled distro.

Most end user distros have a

Most end user distros have a community that develops it (except Ubuntu nowadays). It consists of hobbiests, students, 3rd party firms that use the distro, and the firm or foundation that runs the distro. These distros are usually governed democratically by these developers. Just because the distro's firm wants something doesn't mean they get it. If they tried backdooring security holes, 3rd party developers would stop it. They could theoretically force the issue and ignore the community, but then the 3rd party developers would leave. This is something that Ubuntu is suffering from right now.

the idea is that this is covert

The released distro COULD be different from the source that's published. I'm not saying it's easy or it's been done. I'm saying, it could happen. If you want to keep out of the NSA's dragnet, then why not just compile your own code to be more safe?