What other people do with their computers is not my responsibility. Proprietary software affects my freedom whenever I choose to install it onto my computers.

>>51942115
Nothing is wrong. Just /g/ worshiping commies.

>>51942115
because i want to know what kind of shit they're putting into my computer

>>51942115
They're fine until the company decides to no longer support that hardware and updates to the underlying OS brake compatibility because they have no idea what's in the box.

>>51942190

So does it bother you that you don't know what they puy in stuff you consume? Or stuff you drive? Or what the government knows about you since they don't report to you everything you do?

>>51942699
yeah, that's why i said it did

Because these are our computer and we should decide whether the code running on them is acceptable or not.

>>51942699
Even physical products have their demands with ingredient labels.

>>51942115
Using proprietary software is like eating at a restaurant that won't tell you the basic ingredients even if you ask, "because it's a business secret".

Sure, it might taste great, and sure, maybe you don't get sick eating it for a while. But then one day they decide to cheap out and make their meat out of connective horse tissue and then your ass undergoes thermonuclear meltdown

>falling for the freedom meme

>>51942115
I don't like pay for buggy software, is not perfect. That's wrong for me, but I could sell it to people. So nothing wrong with bad software.

>for retartds: inb4 this implies free software is perfect

File: images.jpg (10 KB, 236x188) Image search: [Google]

10 KB, 236x188

>>51942115
I have no problem against them but the problem is most of the time it's written by greedy Jews who want monopoly and money and try their best to break every thing else.
Don't believe me-try com communicating with your Skype account with someone's I message.
However I have no problem using Proprietary software that's not greedy eg.-chrome

>>51942115
As long as proprietary software does what it says on the box, I have no problem with it.

Because there are no consumer protection laws for software.
Or at least no enforceable ones.

>>51942115
>it's currently unavoidable
>therefore it's right

>>51943043
well, they don't put ingredients on the beer I drink. Sure I know what beer is usually made of, and I've made my own beer, and I can buy beer that discloses their recipe, but sometimes I just want to drink some shit off the shelf and know it tastes good without researching whether or not the cow that shit on the weat they used was free range or some shit

>>51943364
>but sometimes I just want to drink some shit off the shelf and know it tastes good without researching whether or not the cow that shit on the weat they used was free range or some shit
you sicken me

>>51943364
Would that be domestic macrobrewed beer? If so:

>rice

It's used for filler to cut costs, and that's why it tastes like piss and gives you a headache.

Security, family. If the software you use isn't open source, it can't be objectively verified by independent research and code audits.

Closed source is basically an easy business model to get paid because you force people to pay you without anybody being able to verify if your software indeed does and nothing but what it it's supposed to (think of code vulnerabilities).

This is called security through obscurity, and should be avoided when *at least* dealing with the cryptographic functions of your software.

Autists care because it's hard to modify/hack/tinker proprietary stuff.

Normies should care because proprietary software can be full of tracking bullshit and data harvesting (privacy killing). But they don't because they are good goy consumers.

Businesses care because it can be full of bugs and stupid bullshit, and nobody will know until there is a meltdown. Also they can get locked into paying assloads of money for long term support.