Technically, it's no problem if the intended use-case is not to verify against tampering but against transmission errors. However, it's a fine line that people easily cross by accident.
It helps with global education if we condition people to never accept checksums from unencrypted sources, and to be wary of MD5.
Probably it should be read as "taking advantage of the system". Look run an Open Source project is costly, as much as making any other kind of software. Or you throw money developing it or time (which can be translated to money).
They release the source code of everything, plus is GPL so it's free* software as stated by the FSF (but they have privative software as well, for example drivers, as many other Linux distros do).
You still can download the iso for free. Plus they have a community ready to help you, and developers trying yo fix every bug they can.
You don't want to pay. Fine don't pay. You don't want to pay them. Fine don't pay them.
But try to think this, in every situation if you use free software that don't require to you to pay consider to help the project. If you have the possibility, then do a donation you are making a little big help to the project. Any help is welcomed (bug reporting, documentation, programming, recommending to your friends, and other things)
If you don't care, it's fine. But when good open source project dies, God help us. And this is true for every single open source projects not only for them (Ubuntu, Debian, Arch, FreeBSD, vlc player, Kodi).
(free* as freedom).
(free* as free beer).
Let's take a look at other open source monetizers:
* Red Hat - Provide enterprise support.
* Canonical - Provide dumb cloud services and enterprise support
* Docker - Provide enterprise support.
Where does Elementary fit into any of these models? Oh it doesn't? Then what in god's name were you thinking? And then they go on to insult 99%+ of their userbase for using their software without paying? But that was never implied as part of the deal! When I first heard of Elementary I thought of it as something much like Linux Mint... A Ubuntu install with a non-gnome DE as default. Actually, I still very much see it as that... That's all it fucking is.
So when Lubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu, Linux Mint, and Ubuntu all exist entirely for free, and this similar product (but more hipster) comes along, why were the "cheaters", expected to know that this one intended to charge them?
I'm toying with the idea right now of registering geteos.com and linking to images of Elementary without an option to pay just as a "Fuck You" to these guys.
>So when Lubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu, Linux Mint, and Ubuntu all exist entirely for free, and this similar product (but more hipster) comes along, why were the "cheaters", expected to know that this one intended to charge them?
Look I don't like the "cheater" part more than you do yet I consider a bad way to express what they intended to say and not a mere insult.
Now what Lubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu, Linux Mint, and Ubuntu do as their "marketing" (to say a word) policy is up to them. But if you read my comment what I try to say is the same for them. Using an open source project without helping them if you can is take advantage of the system.
>I'm toying with the idea right now of registering geteos.com and linking to images of Elementary without an option to pay just as a "Fuck You" to these guys.
You consider them as idiots/jerks and want to do that, and possibly running against the risk to be sued for trademark infringement or whatever... man you have balls.
That does not do any favor to anyone. Please put the bar of the discussion a little higher. You have right to be upset by their wording use.
You don't like it expose your arguments. If you are going to "fuck" every open project for their mistakes... gosh. Today many people are complaining that the open source community is getting toxic of haters, people threatening, trolls and other people doing bad stuff.
HN is full of smart people, at least if you want to discus acts like that do it elsewhere.
it's funny that you mentioned distributions that all require funding from Canonical (or other companies) in order to survive. You would've been better off using Arch, Gentoo, Debian, etc.
I made a point to pick distributions that are merely a base Ubuntu install strapped with different default desktop environments because that's all that ElementaryOS is.
That's is misleading at most.
It's true that they use other free software, so they don't write all the software themselves. That's a fact, but every other open source project is based in work by other.
The development of Linux kernel is based in work made by individuals at their own expense, but also contributions made by companies (as IBM, Canonical, Red Hat) and donations. Linux have paid software developers (it does not cost you but it cost to somebody).
As far I know, the developers of Elementary OS, are collaborating with the community and they have fixed problems in other open source projects they use themselves as Gtk.
>Are they passing any revenue to their upstream providers?
They have posted bounties (cash) to fix bugs in other software the "upstream providers" in bountysource, so that's public information.
>hey have every right to try and charge people,
> but it's very disengineous to run git clone on a FOSS repo,make a few changes then write a big blog post about charging for the output.
They write their own file-manager (pantheon-files), their own window manager (gala, over mutter), their own configuration system (switchboard). Their calendar application, their calculator, their music player, their movie player... etc.
So that's not easy, and your own phrase is "very disengineous" at least, certainly inaccurate and I hope not bad intentioned.
So you did chose bad your example.
Cent OS was an answer to that, providing a Red Hat binary distribution without any support, for free.
What's wrong with that?
"We want users to understand that they’re pretty much cheating the system when they choose not to pay for software."
And like, they have this on their home page:
elementary OS is completely free, both in terms of pricing and licensing."
So it's weird to mention cheating or talk about making it harder to download for $0 while talking up the free pricing in their ad copy.
If we want to see the world of open source software grow, we should encourage users to pay for its development; otherwise it’ll be underfunded or developers will have to resort to backdoor deals and advertising. And nobody wants that future.
There really are distros that have a business model which isn't shady. It's a lot of work to do something like have a free version and an enterprise version, you have to do boring things like sell and market and support, but those sorts of things don't represent some kind of Open Source apocalypse.
There are even distros that have a business model of asking for donations without being all passive-aggressive about it...
They turned off user comments and edited their post when they started getting pushback from people asking how much of their revenue is going to upstream developers (which is where the vast majority of the work on this operating system is being done).
It's hard to deny that an open source project with more funding has more chances of surviving and developing good software, and I think it's true that users need to be made aware of that.
A well-funded, sustanaible open source ecosystem is in the interest of all of us. Having an alternative to proprietary software is very important if we want to mantain at least the freedom of choice.
The wording in the post sure is wrong, but hey, they're not PR people and it's easy to upset people on the internet. I don't feel like a cheater, but I feel a bit guilty to not have donated to a project I use and like (even though I submit bugs and stuff), and I think that is the feeling they wanted to give users that don't donate. People should be aware that if you don't have some guy with a load of money that pays for development, or some other kind of business that sustains your product, you're dependent on donations to keep the project growing.
Also, if you're not helping in any way (bugs, patches, desing,..), a donation rewards someone else's work on important stuff (also upstream projects!)
I definitely accept this way of bringing money in the project. Software development is time-intensive labour and time is money. You all know that, do you?
Some mentioned "Let the business-people pay" (better known as "Open Core"-model). This is only working if businesses are interested. Elementary OS doesn't target business usage or has business-relevant elements, so that will go nowhere.
"Why We Make You Type “$0”
We want users to understand that paying for software is important and not paying for it is an active choice. We didn’t exclude a $0 button to deceive you; we believe our software really is worth something. And it’s not an attempt to get rich quick; currently the only people who have received money for working on elementary OS have been community members through our bounty program.
It’s about asking a fair price to offset the costs of development. It’s about securing the future of elementary OS to ensure we can keep making software that millions of people love and use every day."
The simple fact is: when I first went to their website I assumed it was a paid package.
And I'd argue KDE has a nearly identical UX to Windows in the first place. You can even get Windows-8-lite with Homerun. So if you want a fluid transition KDE is probably the best choice, as long as you don't overwhelm them with options (start menu, task bar, system tray, min / max / close in top right, have at it champ).
It is pretty impressive how much they've been able to pull together in their desktop environment and custom applications.