Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 46

Thread: Maxthon Web Browser Being Ported To Linux

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    MA, USA
    Posts
    1,208

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grogan View Post
    Why do you care to admonish?
    ...
    I agree. Source code or fuck off, Maxthon. Moreover, they can fuck off anyway as far as I am concerned. That browser was just a silly front end to Internet Explorer. What do we need that shit ported to Linux/Webkit for? (There are plenty of free webkit based browsers already)
    Somewhat of a hypocritical post, questioning my admonishment when you yourself are doing that very thing. I'm simply sick of hearing uid313 making the same un-quantified demand and acting like that opinion should reflect all linux users. There is nothing HARMFUL about adding a proprietary piece of software in userland. If this was a driver or something kernel level then I would understand the aggravation, but even then, the average user as an individual will not take advantage of drivers being open source. But, software like drivers have a chain reaction of issues if something changes and breaks it. If closed-source kernel-level code is closed source, then we at at the mercy of the software owners to fix that code. While the average user won't bother fixing it, the point is SOMEBODY can. However, when it comes to userland software such as Maxthon, it's simply inconvenient if it breaks or doesn't work on some misc architecture. We don't NEED the software at all, and we're not obligated to support it if we don't want to. But telling userland software to fuck off is more counterproductive than anything.
    Last edited by schmidtbag; 09-27-2013 at 01:23 PM.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,006

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by schmidtbag View Post
    *sigh* As usual, WHY DO YOU CARE? I know that you personally will not take advantage of it being open source. I'm sure you won't edit a single line of code, I'm sure you won't compile it for another architecture, I'm sure you have no motive to redistribute the software yourself, and I'm sure you have no legal reasons to need it open source. Of every single time you bitched about closed source software coming to linux, free or not, you have yet to provide even 1 good reason why something MUST be open source if it's on linux. Linux itself is free and open source but even Linus Torvalds himself said you are free to SELL it in a commercialized manner. It's not like this maxthon browser is capitalizing off of linux. If it did, that would be much more of a "fuck off" move than simply closing the source to something they hold the rights to.
    Maxthon isn't selling anything.
    I have no problem with anyone selling anything.
    Selling software is fine by me!
    I would gladly pay money for free open source software.

    My problem is with proprietary closed source software.
    Money is not an issue.
    The issue is freedom.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,444

    Default

    Freedom means that users are able to run whatever software they want in their OS. If Linux made it impossible to run proprietary software, then Linux itself would no longer be free software, by definition. To be considered free software, the software must allow the user to use it in any way they see fit, with no extra restrictions (other than copyleft, and copyleft doesn't restrict usage, only distribution).

    Besides, Linux needs proprietary software. It'd be great if we lived in a world where all software is open source, but that's not the case. I see it in practical terms: in order for Linux to gain more mainstream success, it needs to attract proprietary software titles, because many times people stick to windows because they can't get software X elsewhere. "Can I use photoshop on Linux? Can I play <the latest boring FPS game>?" The latter is getting fixed thanks to Steam, but the former is still a long way from happening. And maybe you don't care about Linux getting more mainstream adoption, but the only way to attract proper support from hardware vendors is for them to see Linux as more than just a tiny niche OS with no real marketshare.

    No one still forces you to use any of the proprietary software. But it's good that it's there for those who want/need it, because it ultimately also benefits all of the open source community, by making Linux a stronger platform overall.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    270

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    Can I use photoshop on Linux?
    Newer version of Adobe Photoshop is part of Creative Cloud meaning subscription only unless someone is willing to pirate a copy.
    That is an example of application Linux system does not need.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,006

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    Freedom means that users are able to run whatever software they want in their OS. If Linux made it impossible to run proprietary software, then Linux itself would no longer be free software, by definition. To be considered free software, the software must allow the user to use it in any way they see fit, with no extra restrictions (other than copyleft, and copyleft doesn't restrict usage, only distribution).

    Besides, Linux needs proprietary software. It'd be great if we lived in a world where all software is open source, but that's not the case. I see it in practical terms: in order for Linux to gain more mainstream success, it needs to attract proprietary software titles, because many times people stick to windows because they can't get software X elsewhere. "Can I use photoshop on Linux? Can I play <the latest boring FPS game>?" The latter is getting fixed thanks to Steam, but the former is still a long way from happening. And maybe you don't care about Linux getting more mainstream adoption, but the only way to attract proper support from hardware vendors is for them to see Linux as more than just a tiny niche OS with no real marketshare.

    No one still forces you to use any of the proprietary software. But it's good that it's there for those who want/need it, because it ultimately also benefits all of the open source community, by making Linux a stronger platform overall.
    I use Linux and it works for me.
    I don't care about Linux market share.
    If other people want to use it fine, if they don't, then fine with me, I don't care what other people use.
    I don't go around trying to recruit people to Linux. Usually, I never tell anyone that I use Linux.

    Windows is hundred times bigger than Linux. Yet Linux have more free software than Windows.
    Why is this?
    If Linux were to have greater proprietary influence with more proprietary software, then the result may be less free software.

    The free software is the part of Linux that appeals to me.
    I can run an operating system and everything can be free open source software. That is very appealing to me.

    If Linux wasn't free software, or the Linux software eco system wasn't so strongly centered and focused around free software, then I probably wouldn't use Linux.

    The great thing about Linux is free software.
    Technically Windows is a superior operating system. It is more much stable, crashes less often, everything just works, you don't have audio glitches, the graphics performance is better, there is much less bugs and regressions, etc.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    8

    Default

    Open source isn't about being free. One thing you can count on that if its closed source then U.S government has their hands in it to make it insure as possible. I would pay for open source software before closed source.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Santiago, Chile
    Posts
    235

    Default

    BTW...

    Last time I checked Maxthon, it was a social network wrapper around Internet Explorer. Do they have their own HTML rendering engine now?

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,444

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by finalzone View Post
    Newer version of Adobe Photoshop is part of Creative Cloud meaning subscription only unless someone is willing to pirate a copy.
    That is an example of application Linux system does not need.
    Yes it does if you want Linux to get into graphics business - design, publishing, print media etc... macs and Windows machines are prevalent on these industries because all the professional software is exlusively on Mac/Windows.

    We have great open-source graphics software, some of it even better than proprietary options, I personally use them all the time and recommend them to everyone - but there are still some things that can't be done by any open-source tools, and proprietary tools are needed for those. Indesign is considered an industry standard in all print media, many design companies also require work submitted in indesign files - that or psd... No, it's not an ideal situation, but it's not going to get fixed by just insisting that businesses start using open source...

    I'd be glad to see open source replace proprietary tools in the graphics industry. We're going to need some companies to start investing into and sponsoring open-soure graphics projects, in order to make that happen.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,444

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uid313 View Post
    Windows is hundred times bigger than Linux. Yet Linux have more free software than Windows.
    Why is this?
    If Linux were to have greater proprietary influence with more proprietary software, then the result may be less free software.
    I guess those are definitely words you can put next to each other. They don't really make any logical sense, though.

    The free software is the part of Linux that appeals to me.
    I can run an operating system and everything can be free open source software. That is very appealing to me.

    If Linux wasn't free software, or the Linux software eco system wasn't so strongly centered and focused around free software, then I probably wouldn't use Linux.
    You can run a system where everything is FOSS, and there are proprietary software on Linux already. If there are more proprietary software on Linux, that's not going to suddenly kill all the open source software. You can still run open source software and keep ignoring the proprietary programs. They won't affect you.

    However, they may bring those people (and companies) who need that one particular proprietary program for whatever reason - they need it for their work, etc. - and who earlier have had to use Windows, to Linux.

    The great thing about Linux is free software.
    Technically Windows is a superior operating system. It is more much stable, crashes less often, everything just works, you don't have audio glitches, the graphics performance is better, there is much less bugs and regressions, etc.
    No it's not. Windows is technically inferior, the Linux kernel is stable as hell. For someone who claims to love open source, you sure as hell have a shitty opinion about it...

    Also, the thing is, most of the glitches and crashes on Linux is precisely because of poor hardware support. In order to fix that, Linux needs more marketshare, more support from hardware manufacturers.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    São Paulo, Brazil
    Posts
    73

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alejandro Nova View Post
    BTW...

    Last time I checked Maxthon, it was a social network wrapper around Internet Explorer. Do they have their own HTML rendering engine now?
    They're just building a new UI over Chromium much like Opera is doing nowadays. The main difference between modern Opera and Maxthon is that Maxthon makes it a point to break everything they can on the Web rendering engine by putting out as stable the unstable APIs Google's engineers are working on just to get higher rated on html5 tests. Maxthon is shit and must be avoided for real Web browsers from organizations and companies that do the real work of implementing and standardizing the Web APIs: Mozilla, Google and Opera.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •