Jones Fears Too Much Freedom Will Kill Linux
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| straypackets Apr 26, 2006 3:38 AM EDT |
SUSE is available at my local CompUSA, along with Linpire. They've carried SUSE for at least 4 years. RedHat, too, when it was doing retail. IBM really doesn't retail much of anything, so I wouldn't expect to see a retail Linux from them. Following the recommendations Jones makes will only increase the cult status of Linux and open source. If Linux can survive only by coalescing into a small band of adherents and walling itself off from the rest of the world in order to assure that each adherent thinks only "correct" thoughts, then Linux will survive as cloistered, monastic, unseen and unused. The essence of Jones' pitch is that she, not you, determines the limits of your freedom of choice. She's really saying that Linux should remain the plaything of the True Believers because she's afraid of what will happen to it when everyone else learns about it. |
| r_a_trip Apr 26, 2006 8:56 AM EDT |
If Linux can survive only by coalescing into a small band of adherents and walling itself off from the rest of the world in order to assure that each adherent thinks only "correct" thoughts, then Linux will survive as cloistered, monastic, unseen and unused. I wouldn't mind if it kept GNU/Linux truly Free, instead of becoming a victim of "proprietary cancer". Proprietary modules by default makes any Free OS instantly proprietary. There is no hybrid possible. Encumberment means going non-Free. |
| purplewizard Apr 26, 2006 10:30 AM EDT |
Straypackets it sounds like you mean boxed sets of Linux for people to buy and install. I understand the Linspire to be on PCs already installed and ready to take home. |
| grouch Apr 26, 2006 11:47 PM EDT |
Your subject title is disgustingly disingenuous. Exactly how, by any stretch of sanity, can the promotion and use of closed drivers and the hardware that requires them be "too much freedom"? How does the promotion of such secret drivers increase anyone's freedom at all? Your arguments are nothing but rants, without sufficient logic for debate. |
| straypackets Apr 29, 2006 2:47 PM EDT |
R_a_trip: If your primary determinant for choosing software is the development model it uses, that's your business. My prinmary interest in Linux has always been this: It's Unix, and I can afford it. Everything else is secondary. If Torvald's had incorporated and sold Linux for $99 I'd still use it. Grouch: Disingenuous? Secret drivers? Huh? I think people ought to be free to put any software they choose on their own hardware. You seem to think that they shouldn't be. How is restricting my choices to only "free" software increasing my options? |
| grouch Apr 29, 2006 3:32 PM EDT |
straypackets: "Jones Fears Too Much Freedom Will Kill Linux" is a false statement and presents a view completely at odds with the article to which you are responding. Your entire first comment is a rant that attributes to Pamela Jones sentiments she did not express, either in the article or in subsequent comments. >"I think people ought to be free to put any software they choose on their own hardware. You seem to think that they shouldn't be. How is restricting my choices to only "free" software increasing my options?" Show me where I have ever stated that people should not be free to choose their software. You appear to have trouble comprehending what you read or trouble reading before commenting on what others write. Did you read the article? Did you read Arjan van de Ven's "Linux in a binary world"? Did you read Andrea Arcangeli's response? From which part of any of those did you conclude "The essence of Jones' pitch is that she, not you, determines the limits of your freedom of choice"? |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!