Sad.

Story: What You DeserveTotal Replies: 58
Author Content
Libervis

Jul 04, 2008
4:42 PM EST
Sorry, but mentioning war involvements in the context of fighting for freedom pushes this one over the top.

I wish to associate myself with noone who finds it OK to use violence in the name of "freedom" and then goes to compare Free Software advocacy efforts with something like that.

Nationalism and patriotism should stay away from freedomware.

Helios, you've lost a fan. :(
dinotrac

Jul 04, 2008
4:49 PM EST
Sounds like he should be proud to lose your kind of fan.

Speaks well of him.
Libervis

Jul 04, 2008
4:55 PM EST
Why? Because he lost a fan who supports no war and violence? Who is left?

You're not doing him any favors.

Gosh he mentioned Fallujah as if it was something to be proud off! [url=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1134673789364675735&q=fallujah hidden&pl=true]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1134673789364675735...[/url]

I can't believe this.
dumper4311

Jul 04, 2008
5:11 PM EST
Funny how one version of zealotry (nationalism and patriotism) is so offensive, but another version of zealotry ("Free" software advocacy) is the very air we breathe.

Helios is passionate about all of the above, good for him. So long as he's not forcing me or anyone else to live by his ideals, and such ideals aren't causing harm to others, more power to him.

The funny thing about real freedom is, I'm free to value and support entirely different things than you, or helios, or anyone else for that matter. So long as I'm not causing harm, I'm free to do, think, and act (or not act, as was part of his point), as I see fit. Someday I hope the FSF remembers that, and stops trying to restrict by license the ways I can use "free" code, but I digress.

You've actually demonstrated part of his point: there is no "Free" software community. His interests are obviously not yours, and as a result, you're less supportive of his actions. That's certainly your right, and I'm not knocking you for it. But so long as we can't look past our differences and constructively support each other - at least on things we do agree on - there will be no effective "Free" software community. I'm starting to think that's not such a bad thing after all. Trading one proprietary master for a more benevolent "free" master isn't much of a step up, in my opinion.

Can't we all just get along? :)
jdixon

Jul 04, 2008
5:28 PM EST
> Because he lost a fan who supports no war and violence?

No war or violence is a wonderful ideal. Maybe someday it will be possible, but it's not an option in this world. Sometimes you don't have a choice. When you don't you need people like Ken.

I've been fortunate. I've never served in the military. And given the fact that I just turned 50 yesterday, i don't expect to ever do so. Maybe I'm strange, but that makes me especially grateful to those that have. Allow me take this moment to express that gratitude. Ken, thanks for your service. Some of us appreciate it.

> ...he mentioned Fallujah as if it was something to be proud off!

And who are you to say it isn't?

As to the details of the article: I've done very little to deserve the gifts bestowed on me by Linus, Patrick, and a host of others. I do my part to help others where I can and spread the word as best I can. I buy a copy of my distribution every few years and donate a few spare dollars to worthy causes where possible. It's nowhere near enough, but it's the best I can do.
Libervis

Jul 04, 2008
5:29 PM EST
You got it wrong man (dumper). I have withdrawn my subscription from the FSF a few months ago and no longer side with FSF nor Richard Stallman about Freedomware. I also no longer believe it is immoral to use non-free software if it is your choice. All I want to do is let people know that there may be better options to choose from, that the terms of use as well as access to the source code may very well matter to them if they just pay attention - in other words make them more aware and better equipped to choose.

So I completely agree with you when you say that real freedom is about letting people believe in whatever they want and freely make choices in their lives, regardless of whether I agree with them or not. I am not doing anything to force Helios to change his views, clearly. I have the right, however, as one human individual free to act and speak, to voice my concern and disassociate from someone who supports something that so basically and fundamentally flies in face of all that I believe in.

That said I did not necessarily say that I would not support Helios when what he is doing and the way it is doing wont involve something I do not wish to support. And I was at first quite supportive to the whole Lindependence 2008 project as well, but since then (few months ago) I've explored certain things quite a bit and dramatically changed the way I think. I just cannot accept nationalist themes anymore. It is too divisionist. We are all humans, not americans, croatians or what have you so to emphasize these nationalist and pretty divisionist themes as part of a campaign for Linux just doesn't sit well with me, especially knowing how utterly far from innocent this nation that some people are so proud of is - founded on war, like every other nation out there, but probably even worse (US has a pretty horrid track record of wars). Fighting for freedom they call it, yet the more wars you had the less free your country has become.

It's probably incredibly hard for some to admit this, but you've got nothing to celebrate here, except perhaps for hope that we can improve things in this world, bring about true independence, independence from violence and divisions that we form between each other.

Speaking of getting along.. that's exactly why I oppose nationalism.
Libervis

Jul 04, 2008
5:37 PM EST
Jdixon,

> No war or violence is a wonderful ideal. Maybe someday it will be possible, but it's not an option in this world.

It will never be possible. :(

Not until you say no and influence others to say no. So long as you still believe that time hasn't come for you to say no and that violence and war still have a place, it will never change.

I say no. And I will not promote freedomware in a way that makes it seem as if it is some nationalist thing. How do you expect me to feel? I am born in Croatia. Even if I considered myself Croatian I may be offended by the americanist attitude. But the thing is, I no longer believe that I am a "croatian" either. I am just a human. I said no to divisions. I am a human individual who deserves to be free exactly because of being a human individual, just the same as you, Ken and everybody else here.

Brand me a hippy if you want, but why can't we just say no? It doesn't matter what your past was. So what if Ken was in military. That doesn't mean he has to forever stay a supporter of military action in the name of freedom. There is no such thing as force for freedom. I can admire his courage for fighting for what he believed in when he was back there, but that doesn't mean I have to accept what he believed then nor that he has to believe exactly the same thing today.

If you think it's a bad thing, then break away. Don't just perpetuate it under the excuse of "we're not ready" and "it's time hasn't come". You're ready when you are ready. Meanwhile, people are dieing in those wars every day and the world is waiting for enough of people like you and me to stop this madness and promote freedom as freedom, for everyone and by choice.
jdixon

Jul 04, 2008
5:45 PM EST
> We are all humans, not americans...

Sorry, but on that point you're wrong. Yes, I'm a human. I'm also a male, caucasian, an American, a Virginian, and a West Virginian (those of you who know the history of the state will understand why I include both). Those are all qualifiers on my humanity. Whether you like or agree with those qualifiers is up to you, but it doesn't change them.

> US has a pretty horrid track record of wars

Really? I'd ask the British and French their opinion of our historical record concern wars if I were you. You might also want to check with the Japanese, Germany, and a host of others to numerous to mention here.

> ...but you've got nothing to celebrate here...

Your measure of nothing is flawed. I'll actually agree that we have little to celebrate, though I doubt our reasons are the same, But this isn't the fora to discuss that.
jdixon

Jul 04, 2008
5:55 PM EST
> It will never be possible. :(

See, we agree about something.

> So long as you still believe that time hasn't come for you to say no and that violence and war still have a place, it will never change.

It won't change no matter what I do.

And what makes you think I've said yes to violence and war? Unlikely you, I simply realize that there are those who do believe that violence is justifiable, and who they do not undertand anything else. To them, non-violence is a weakness to be exploited, not a virtue. Those people must be met and defeated in the only way they understand.

You see, I realize that people can choose between good and evil, and that some of them, fortunately a small minority, will choose evil.

Libervis

Jul 04, 2008
6:00 PM EST
I may call myself a croatian, citizen of Zagreb etc. to denote my inhabitance, but not my nationality, as if it's something that makes me different from someone who is born in Slovenia or someone born in USA. It just doesn't. I don't see the benefit of putting up such labels.

The comparison with Britich and French wars may be fair enough, but it's not a matter of degrees as much as it is a matter of principle. Wars violate human beings and we've had enough of them (and "enough" is an extreme understatement).

From my perspective it's close to nothing, given the current context. But you're right, it's not the place. The on-topic point is about freedomware and not relating it to nationalism or americanism, but I think I've made my position on that pretty clear.

dumper4311

Jul 04, 2008
6:02 PM EST
Good luck with that, Livervis. I also look forward to the day when we can hold hands, sing Kumbaya, and not have to worry about people who don't like us trying to kill us ("us" being used generically for any nationality you may choose to be proud of, as that seems to be your major hang up in this thread - or none at all, whatever works for you).

In the mean time, I'll continue to be proud of any nation that would allow you to speak so poorly of it without recrimination, and of the men and women who serve to provide you such freedom - however you may choose to take advantage of it.

Back on the subject of "free" software, while helios is still a bit idealistic for me, that's also part of his strength. He is a true activist, in that he ACTS on his beliefs, and helps other people through his actions. So while we may or may not always agree on the specifics, I firmly believe people like him are the best hope the masses have for open source and standards progress.
Libervis

Jul 04, 2008
6:05 PM EST
> And what makes you think I've said yes to violence and war?

Perhaps in limited situations, but it's still a yes. When it's a matter of principle "maybe" and "sometimes" doesn't quite count.

> Unlikely you, I simply realize that there are those who do believe that violence is justifiable, and who they do not undertand anything else.

Well that's obvious so I do believe that too, but that's not the point.

I condone defensive use of force in the amount proportionate to the violation, but wars are never limited to that. They far exceed the use of merely defensive force, use far too much generalization (like devastating a whole country to "defend" from... the few who did 9/11 attacks or what? It's not even as solid as that... ).

This is not the way.
gus3

Jul 04, 2008
6:05 PM EST
Quoting:independence from violence and divisions that we form between each other.
Like it or not, there will always be those who will take advantage of exactly the situation you describe, and make it worse for everyone. Si vis pacem, para bellum.

You say you have less freedom and more war. Yet there you sit, typing away, and nobody is kicking in your door to haul you away for criticizing the U.S. government. As you put it:

Quoting:I have the right, however, as one human individual free to act and speak, to voice my concern and disassociate from someone who supports something that so basically and fundamentally flies in face of all that I believe in.
And those in Fallujah did not. They were routinely beaten, tortured, even murdered for not demonstrating absolute solidarity with a few people's ideas of Islam. And how many others around the world have seen the same, for questioning Stalin, for not rescuing portraits of Kim Jong Il from a burning building, for refusing to acknowledge Beijing's vassal over Catholics in China...?

Fallujah isn't paradise, but it's a bunch better than it used to be. That's thanks to US, the U.S. And you have the chutzpah to claim that if we can't make it perfect (by your definition), we shouldn't try. What would you have had us do, leave things the way they were?

I can point you to lots of Iraqis with purple fingers, who would disagree with you.
tuxchick

Jul 04, 2008
6:11 PM EST
Libervis, you're the one drawing up the divisions. At the rate you're going it will be impossible for anyone to meet your standards as being someone fit for you to associate with. Are you that picky in all arenas? Do you investigate everyone to ensure that they meet your standards? Or is "don't ask, don't tell" good enough? I bet I have beliefs or do activities that you don't approve of, and I bet most folks you associate with do as well. Is it OK as long as you don't know? Maybe if Ken knew more about you he wouldn't want you around anyway. Though I don't think so; Ken is a generous soul with a gift for keeping focused on the important jobs.

Ask yourself, how will shunning Ken and his FOSS advocacy gain anything? What were you doing to support his advocacy, anyway? Will anyone even notice you're gone?

I think your new thinking is fuzzy and incomplete, and you have more to work out. A lot more.
Libervis

Jul 04, 2008
6:13 PM EST
Dumper: > the men and women who serve to provide you such freedom - however you may choose to take advantage of it.

Freedom is not theirs to give. You can't "give" freedom. You can only let go so one can be free. This is exactly the kind of thinking which makes people subservient to each other, and ultimately in constant state of fear or owing to each other instead of in a state of true freedom.

> He is a true activist, in that he ACTS on his beliefs, and helps other people through his actions. So while we may or may not always agree on the specifics, I firmly believe people like him are the best hope the masses have for open source and standards progress.

To a point I agree, but tieing nationalist themes to it adds an unnecessary breath of divisionism to the whole thing. If anything then Freedomware, Free Software, Open Source, whatever you like to call it, is a truly international movement. It has as little to do with nations and states as the blue sky above us.
azerthoth

Jul 04, 2008
6:27 PM EST
Well, since everyone seems happy enough to call bob on his off topic political rants, for those of you participating here who have done so in the past, there is a comment about a pot and a kettle coming to mind.

jdixon

Jul 04, 2008
6:29 PM EST
> You can't "give" freedom.

No, but you can take it away. And you can stop someone from taking it away. Ken is one of those (one of many) who has worked to stop those who are taking freedom away from others. For that, he has my gratitude and respect.

> ...but tieing nationalist themes to it...

Is perfectly normal. We're all limited by time and space. We know best the time and place we live in. it's our reference point. Ken is an American of the 20th and 21st century. It's both a virtue and a fault, like it is for everyone else. In general, America has done far more good than harm on the world stage. There's no reason not to be proud of that. There's also no reason not to be proud of the American heritage of individual freedom, strained though it may be at times. You tend to associate the things you take pride in with each other. It's a perfectly normal human characteristic. And isn't being "human" what you claim is so important?
jdixon

Jul 04, 2008
6:33 PM EST
> ...since everyone seems happy enough to call bob on his off topic political rants...

I don't believe I've ever done that. :)

In any case, my part in this discussion has been strictly philosophical, not political, though some may not believe that.
Libervis

Jul 04, 2008
6:34 PM EST
gus3:

> Like it or not, there will always be those who will take advantage of exactly the situation you describe, and make it worse for everyone.

Yes, but the way we are dealing with it today escalates rather than solves that problem. Fighting coercion with more coercion, war with more war, tyranny with more tyranny.

> You say you have less freedom and more war. Yet there you sit, typing away, and nobody is kicking in your door to haul you away for criticizing the U.S. government.

First, I'm not living in US. Second, kicking people's doors for doing something entirely non-violent is something that does happen in US and pretty much most other western countries as well. Just because I happen to be lucky enough doing something that is "allowed" doesn't make invasions of freedom of others doing somethig equally non-violent any less wrong. http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/projects/niem/ni...

> What would you have had us do, leave things the way they were?

No. I would've encouraged people to do anything they possibly can do without launching a missile and killing people. I don't believe in sacrificing the life of another human for your own moral values. There is always a better way, but people seldom bother to look for them, and end up using the crudest of "solutions": force.

tuxchick:

Well, point taken about being picky. Perhaps I am overreacting by ceasing ALL associations, but I think it is not going to far to at least state my disapproval.

> Ask yourself, how will shunning Ken and his FOSS advocacy gain anything? What were you doing to support his advocacy, anyway? Will anyone even notice you're gone?

I perhaps shouldn't just "shun" him, but being who I am I will not sit idle if I think something about it is wrong. How much did what I was doing in his support meant is up to him to say. I used my sites to help spread his campaigns a few times and defended them against sceptics (such as with the Tux500 project).

> I think your new thinking is fuzzy and incomplete, and you have more to work out. A lot more.

No. :( It is not that. To be entirely honest I just find it incredibly difficult to express what I know and believe because it is seemingly so different from the way most people (including people here think). The fact that this forum disallows even talk that resembles politics (even though at the core this is not politics) isn't helping, but then again I guess there are other ways to express it.

I've written about it on my blog at memeverse.com though and will continue to write it.

It is hard to convey something that is in fact a whole new paradigm, not just a new idea or two, but a whole paradigm of thinking. I am not surprised that you find it incomplete.

Thank you

dumper4311

Jul 04, 2008
6:38 PM EST
>"You can only let go so one can be free."

God help me, the world's coming to an end - I agree with tuxchick!!! :)

I likewise think your new thinking is fuzzy and incomplete. What you believe is worth exactly nothing, if you can't recognize and interact constructively with the reality of a given situation. This is why the current redefinition of "freedom" by the FSF is destined to failure, and why your beautiful idealism will advance the "human" cause not at all.

The only "freedom" you gain by letting go is the freedom of subservience or nonexistence. The men and women who serve their country to protect your freedom do, in a very real sense, provide you the freedom to express yourself without the fear of subservience or nonexistence. Thus, they have for all practical purposes given you freedom. Whether you choose to value or even recognize that simple fact is another expression of the freedom you've been given.

If you'll read helios' article again, you'll discover this was his point with free software: what we're given and what we deserve are two entirely different things. :)
Libervis

Jul 04, 2008
6:44 PM EST
jdixon:

> And you can stop someone from taking it away. Ken is one of those (one of many) who has worked to stop those who are taking freedom away from others. For that, he has my gratitude and respect.

Or at least that's what both you and him believe. I wont deny it that many people going into such wars genuinely believe they are protecting freedom, but I cannot agree. Outright wars like the ones US people are fighting in the name of freedom are like using shotgun to kill a wasp that stinged you and then shooting up the whole of their hive in the name of "protecting" yourself. Can you see where I'm getting at?

Be thankful if Helios comes and saves you from a criminal who came to your house to kill you. That's a case where your freedom and life would be truly endangered and where his action would truly mean protecting you. But involvement in a war.. I'm not so sure. As I said I can pay him respect and admiration for having the courage considering that he knew no better and truly believed in what he was doing, but since I don't myself share this belief I can't express more than that for him.
dumper4311

Jul 04, 2008
6:45 PM EST
@azerthoth:

I said it before, and I'll say it again here: it's Bob's fault! Blame Bob!!!

(Sorry Bob_R, if you're listening, I'm just messin' with ya a bit, couldn't hardly let that go.) :)
Scott_Ruecker

Jul 04, 2008
6:49 PM EST
Ok, so here is my attempt to steer things in another direction.

Helios stated what he believed about what is, or is not 'deserved' according to him. The examples he used came directly from his life and his experiences. Whether or not his examples are accurate or relevant to his overall point is up to the interpretation of the reader.

I am in no way saying that I agree with everything he said and why, because I don't. My idea of what is 'deserved' or not is very different from his.

For my part, I think the point of his article gets lost in the emotional buttons that get pushed by the examples he uses. The fact that this thread has turned into a debate on war, (non)violence and the validity of their respective philosophies is proof enough for me.

What he is saying is, that he thinks only a few people truly 'deserve' what they think they deserve. That's his opinion, not mine.

My response to Ken is this;

If that's true then why are you bothering to bring the 'freedom' of FOSS software to the unwashed masses in the first place? If most of them don't 'deserve' it then why are you wasting your time trying? If FOSS is only really 'deserved' by a few people we can only assume that most of them already have it. What's the point of all the saber rattling then? I don't think you really believe what you said in your article Ken, otherwise you wouldn't be doing what your doing and why. But if I am wrong tell me.

Quoting:Go ahead...I'm listening


I am trying to send this thread in another direction, trying. Please read my comments with that in mind.

Libervis

Jul 04, 2008
6:55 PM EST
> This is why the current redefinition of "freedom" by the FSF is destined to failure, and why your beautiful idealism will advance the "human" cause not at all.

What redefinition? Also, as I said I'm not an associate of FSF anymore nor do I share their beliefs entirely.

> The only "freedom" you gain by letting go is the freedom of subservience or nonexistence.

And what is the alternative? Force? For freedom?

You speak of subservience as what I'd get if I just let people go (laissez faire), yet at the same time you speak of "serving" in the name of my freedom:

> The men and women who serve their country to protect your freedom do, in a very real sense, provide you the freedom to express yourself without the fear of subservience or nonexistence.

I suppose you believe someone must always be sacrificed for another to have freedom, while others must be rewarded extraordinary power in the name of that same freedom. I'm sorry.. I can't believe that anymore. This is exactly why we have the problems that we have, including to a large extent even the problem of proprietary software. We constantly try to control each other OR sacrifice each other in order to attain freedom, but in practice it somehow keeps evading us, doesn't it, no matter how much we sang praises for those who did the sacrifices or took control (great men in power).

Libervis

Jul 04, 2008
7:03 PM EST
I'll take the cue from Scott. The thing is I do indeed greatly disagree with the whole "deserve" part as well and in fact see this as only a part of the greater paradigm that I so vehemently disagree with.

If someone offers me Free Software for no price at all along with the terms of use which allow me, no questions asked, to share and modify it, and I take the offer, do I deserve it? Well, why not? The one who provided this software asked for nothing and stated the terms that I need to respect. Those are the only things I need to "do" in order to "deserve" having this software.

If you really think that someone has to do more than that to deserve free software (s)he is using then I suppose you're in favor of either more restrictions or greater price of software - or in other words asking for something more in return for providing what you're providing.

That said I think Helios always had a knack for criticizing the non-existent (by his own profession) "community" for not doing enough, for doing it wrong etc. I'm not sure this attitude really helps his overall cause, but it's one thing that makes him unique and may bring in some people to listen and volunteer more I suppose.

dumper4311

Jul 04, 2008
7:05 PM EST
@Scott_R:

>"I am trying to send this thread in another direction"

Therin lies the rub, my friend. Helios is trying to free the unwashed masses from their proprietary chains with his actions. I've already mentioned that I think he's a bit idealistic sometimes, but I appreciate his efforts, and the results he obtains. From such efforts, we obtain a few new recruits who will contribute.
dumper4311

Jul 04, 2008
7:29 PM EST
@Libervis:

>"I suppose you believe . . ."

What you suppose about what I believe demonstrates that I haven't been clear in explaining my position to you. For that I'm sorry. As for your "entirely new philosophy", it strikes me as derivative of some fairly old ideas. I'd recommend examining such subjects further as they've already been written about, and the consequences and implications of such lines of thought.

With respect to redefinition, the FSF has gone from "use this software as you see fit" to "use this software as you see fit, so long as we approve of how you use it.". Thus, a redefinition of freedom.

With the deserving the software, you've made a point worth noting. It's one I've made in the past and run right over the top of here, while trying to demonstrate another point. The license this code is released under states that we all are entitled to it's use - we have that right regardless of whether we contribute back or not.

Beyond his zeal, helios is simply stating that we should feel some responsibility to give back for what we've been given. His inclusion of the definition of the word "deserve" indicates such. I tend to agree with that sentiment, but only insofar as such contributions are freely given. Certainly helios isn't demanding that we all be required to give back, he's just stating that he believes we should, within our means to do so.
tuxchick

Jul 04, 2008
7:35 PM EST
As usual, Ken wanders all over the landscape. This is the key passage:

Quoting: There are parallels here...parallels between this thing we do and what our forefathers forged into being. Both are struggles for freedom. In both cases there were tyrannical forces that opposed their beliefs and practices. Of course, one involved life and death...the other philosophical beliefs. But make no mistake. Unless we gather and forge our own union, we stand the chance of being squashed into non-existence.


So...what's so controversial, so shun-worthy about that? The FOSS community is, in many ways, its own worst enemy, wasting endless time and energy squabbling over stupid stuff. Is Ken saying we should use violence to advance FOSS? Get a grip. Ken isn't shooting anyone. He's not saying anyone else should shoot anyone. It is a simple parallel about the importance of setting aside our differences, standing united on the things that matter, and fighting for what we believe in. Ken's message is simple: Pro-FOSS, and he'll give you hands-on help. He's accomplishing far more than someone who pouts on the sidelines because the other players are not of sufficient ideological character.

The deserve rant? It's right on. He's not the only one who gets tired of whiny, demanding people who treat the magnificent gift of FOSS with such disrespect and ingratitude. Please note how he draws a clear line between "right" and "deserve".
dumper4311

Jul 04, 2008
7:38 PM EST
@tuxchick: >"Ken isn't shooting anyone."

Well, as far as we know. . . :)
Libervis

Jul 04, 2008
8:08 PM EST
dumper4311:

> As for your "entirely new philosophy", it strikes me as derivative of some fairly old ideas.

It's not *my* philosophy. I didn't mean that. I don't presume to be such a great philosopher to be forging my own brand new unique philosophies, mind you. I embraced the idea many people embraced in the past, but were usually in great minority and greatly misunderstood, because they hold a paradigm which is so uncommon and therefore, no matter how ultimately simple, still hard to grasp.

I mean, it's fine when someone says "I'm against all coercion". On the surface most people will probably agree. But as soon as you start encouraging them to think about the natural progression of belief in non-coercion, they begin to squirm and turn into undieing skeptics which look at you as the dark messenger of chaos. And all simply because they can't grasp the possibilities being expressed. It goes against everything they've ever been taught.

This is a decent resource about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntaryism

I'm not baiting for continued discussion on it though, just stating what this "new philosophy" is coming from. Of course, it'd be overly simplifying to say that this "paradigm shift" just suddenly happened. I always believed in "whatever floats your boat as long as it doesn't sink mine". Exploring and following that to its final conclusion led me where I am.

tuxchick:

> So...what's so controversial, so shun-worthy about that?

Being an anti-nationalist voluntaryist who doesn't believe in sacrificing each other his language was fairly distasteful for me by that point already. But if that's all that there was to it I might have ended up letting it go. What really made me temporarily go ballistic about it was mention of battles including Fallujah and "getting it right the second time". You may disagree, but as someone who is anti-war and see no justification and therefore no "right" whatsoever in what is happening in that war in Iraq, I felt disgusted honestly. At least you might understand that given the context I've described. :S

helios

Jul 04, 2008
9:31 PM EST
"If that's true then why are you bothering to bring the 'freedom' of FOSS software to the unwashed masses in the first place?"

I'm not. Not now. That's the problem.

There are 40 million of us on this globe. I've been pushing this iceberg for almost 4 years now and for all my efforts, I may as well have been pushing an iceberg. Me and just about everyone else who reads this thread. Thank you. We are a relative handful of people who care. Problem is...for every person that wants to spread this gift across the globe, there are twice as many people with conflicting ideas on how to do it. And that's assuming they want to do it at all. We spend more time arguing about philosophy and technique than we do actually getting anything done.

There are three operative terms in my article. hyperbole, deserve, and right. "Deserve" is over-used, mis-used and mostly abused 80 percent of the time it's used. Thus my mention of hyperbole.

"GET THE CAR YOU DESERVE TODAY!!!" "YOU DESERVE A HIGHER CREDIT RATING. WE WILL GIVE IT TO YOU" "ARE YOU LIVING IN THE HOUSE YOU DESERVE?"

My point is much simpler than it's being made out...but that's my fault. It always is. I talk too much.

The men and women in our armed forces risk a chance of being called to stand in defensive posture some day...trooping a line that is designed so that they can defend us while we huddle in darkened houses, urinating on ourselves out of fear and praying the batteries in our radios don't fail and neither does that defensive line. Do you "deserve" the freedom maintained by the repelling of those invaders? Or for that matter any of the freedom we enjoy at the cost of other's lives and limb? Do you "deserve" to be called "the victor" for any of these victories?

Of course not, and neither do I. My point is that there are always a few who carry the weight of many and that stands true for more things than software advocacy...it's a universal truth. In the coming months, there stands a chance of an event taking place that will rip our world inside out. There are two circumstances/events that can divert this thing...and I've spoken of it briefly as recently as fifteen minutes ago...I'll not repeat it here. If we don't congeal as a community...if we don't start telling the public en mass that they have a choice...we are going to get steamrolled so fast and so completely that little will be able to be done to do anything about it. I'm not screwing around here folks...we need some serious exposure on the media airwaves. A lot of it and fairly soon.

When you do stumble across the event I've spoken of, and it was a huge mistake to do it...one thing will become clear above all else.

Lindependence 2008 was far from just a publicity stunt. There was a singular motive for it long before it ever generated the first article. It will truly be our Lexington.

h
Libervis

Jul 05, 2008
8:35 AM EST
> Do you "deserve" the freedom maintained by the repelling of those invaders?

As a sentient being I deserve freedom. Period. I do not force people to go to war in my name. Yet some people keep insisting that they do. Was every individual in US asked if he wants to be protected this way?

Also, you speak of these invaders as if there was a constant threat of a bunch of foreigners invading your own home as soon as the US army retires. Ever read "1984"? This state of constant fear is what justifies never ending warring and stripping away of freedom in the name of your own security.

> My point is that there are always a few who carry the weight of many and that stands true for more things than software advocacy...it's a universal truth.

Ideally, one should carry the weight of only his own. If you wish to carry more then that is your choice though. The thing I just cannot understand is how some people believe in self sacrifice in the name of others who didn't even ask for such a sacrifice and then go around blaming everyone why they don't respect it. Or even when they do respect it, it isn't enough. The bottom line ends up being that the one with the mentality of sacrifice and subservience wants everyone else to be sacrificed and subservient. :S

So if this is not really what you believe then maybe it'd be better if you just cut through all of the abstract talk and get to the point and the point is Linux, the strategic threats to it by certain Microsoft's moves in the market and our strategy of dealing with that.

Everything else is just blowing hot air to be inflamed.

Btw, I posted a couple of friendly comments on your blog which weren't approved yet.

Thanks!

Danijel
jdixon

Jul 05, 2008
8:37 AM EST
> But involvement in a war.. I'm not so sure.

Good. You should never take authority, especially government, at its word. However, you should respect the decisions of those who decide differently than you. Remember, freedom includes the right to disagree and act upon those decisions.

Ken has made different decisions than you would have. That's his right. It's his life not yours. That doesn't mean you can't find things you agree on and cooperate on those things. Ideally, FOSS is one of those things you can cooperate on. Disagreements can separate us, true. But agreements pull us back together. My recommendation is to stop looking for things to disagree about and start looking for things to agree about. Don't let things someone's disagreeing with you about the worth of nationalities keep you from working with them on things you agree about, like FOSS. Life's too short for that.
Bob_Robertson

Jul 05, 2008
8:46 AM EST
Lexington and Concord was, from the losing (militia) side, a defensive action. What would today be called the National Guard marched into those communities and were met by armed citizens who decided not to "cower in their homes wetting themselves."

Lindependence 2008 is not a defensive act. It is aggressive, against an established and entrenched foe, but still voluntary.

Aggressive war is not voluntary. Any equation of "free software" and the death and destruction being waged right now in the false name of "freedom" is mistaken. Freedom has nothing to do with going to someone else's home and killing them, unless it is they themselves as individuals who are threatening you.

So in the "war" of Free Software, would reformatting Bill Gate's PC with Linux be reasonable? Yes. Blowing up the Microsoft campus and killing their programmers and cleaning staff? No.

I also do not approve of Stallman's "Free Software is only what I consider Free, and you must use it" attitude. He takes a noble principle, "freedom", and then poisons it by wanting to force it on people. You cannot force someone to be free, that's just substituting one tyranny for, well, let's try that again.

You cannot force someone to be free. That's just imposing your own choices upon others, tyranny. The only way for someone to be free is to be left to choose for themselves.

Isn't that the definition of Freedom? The ability to choose for one's self?

> If we don't congeal as a community...if we don't start telling the public en mass that they have a choice...we are going to get steamrolled so fast and so completely that little will be able to be done to do anything about it.

I couldn't agree more.

The strongest aspect of F/OSS is that it is distributed. There is no one entity to "buy out", no one person (even if Stallman could be, which I seriously doubt) to undermine, no one "front" on which to battle.

And no "price" to undercut.

But that also means that there is no cohesive community to support particular programs. Even the Tux500 project was darned hard to fund, and that was the most specific and simplest to understand publicity idea I've seen.

There is no marketing budget.

Each person is left to do what each person can do, and will do, on their own. I will never argue that a monolithic organization, especially one with coercive power, cannot do "great" things. Some individuals are drawn to such exactly for that "greatness".

But I am reminded of J.K.Rawlings' warning at the beginning of Harry Potter:

"He Who Must Not Be Named did great things. Terrible, yes, but great."
Libervis

Jul 05, 2008
8:47 AM EST
I'm inclinded to agree with you jdixon on that.

That said, while it is his decision I would as a matter of friendly advice, encourage Ken to be a little less abstract and a little more to the point.

Basically, when the issue is involvement in a particular Linux marketing effort and the feeling that people aren't doing enough about it, state so without all of the ado which just ends up inflaming hot heads like me for no good reason. There is a strategic threat. We need to deal with it. Here is why you might care. Are you with me? Great. Will you ignore it? Your loss.

And that's it. You go on doing what you love to do and giving the world more reason to admire your efforts.

Cheers

jdixon

Jul 05, 2008
8:56 AM EST
> I would as a matter of friendly advice, encourage Ken to be a little less abstract and a little more to the point.

I think even Ken would agree with that. :)

> You go on doing what you love to do and giving the world more reason to admire your efforts.

See. Easy, wasn't it? :)

There are evil people in the world. But most of the time people disagree with you it's for perfectly valid reasons of their own. In some cases they've even thought the matter through carefully. :) Ken is one of the good guys. And so, though we may frequently disagee, are you.
Libervis

Jul 05, 2008
8:56 AM EST
Well said Bob. :)

Mentioning Tux500 and funding issues I for some reason remembered one idea I've had recently when I was frustrated about lack of good video editing tools on Linux. After having a discussion with my fellow voluntaryist friend, we concluded that my frustration was misdirected (I often get so far as to say things like "bleh, this is why Linux sucks", seriously :P ). But the thing is, all I have to do is create a market incentive for the production of video editing or any other tools I need.

Thanks to free software, I don't pay for my software so in a sense it is no wonder that I don't get to have such good video editing tools as some proprietary tools are. Maybe that's just it.. maybe I just need to start paying! :)

But since I don't have as much to spare myself, and a small donation wouldn't quite do to create this incentive to produce a really great video editing tool, a good idea may be to form funding groups which could pool money and then offer it to programmers in exchange for them developing or improving a given software we want improved.

For instance, I think PiTiVi has great potential as an editing tool, but it's very early in development. Maybe we should pool funds to help accelerate the project?

Anyway, just a thought. I know there already are tools that empower such efforts (like fundable.org), but I think this isn't done by Linux users enough. And imagine the benefits of having better productivity applications on Linux! It's as good as any marketing effort. :)

Cheers
Libervis

Jul 05, 2008
9:01 AM EST
> There are evil people in the world.

Hmm, I disagree. :P There are only people doing what I may consider to be evil things, but there are no evil people.

With the rest I agree.

Btw, just an additional note on the above software funding thought. This is something that can be organized as part of some future Lindependence-like efforts. Every year a fundfest could be held to gather a significant sum of money for a given project, with specific objectives (add this or that set of features to this or that program etc.).

Cheers
jdixon

Jul 05, 2008
9:17 AM EST
> There are only people doing what I may consider to be evil things, but there are no evil people.

A difference in definition then. No problem. It's a difference which makes little (though not no) difference.
dinotrac

Jul 05, 2008
9:32 AM EST
On deserves...

Most people don't deserve their freedom, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have it.

My father didn't deserve to die when his plane went down protecting our (US) freedom, but he did. I didn't deserve to lose my father, but I did. On my own merits, I don't deserve the freedom he died for, but I have it.

All in all, deserving or not, I can enjoy the freedom and be grateful to everyone who has worked to provide and/or preserve it. It's been years since I went to visit his grave at Arlington Cemetery, but I can still see the endless white stones against lush green grass.

I remember it as both appalling and awe-inspiring. What a terrible thing war is to rip so many young lives away from us. How great the gift must be to warrant such a price.
Bob_Robertson

Jul 05, 2008
9:33 AM EST
Funding methods.... Ok, I am remembering a "software bounty" system, but I cannot remember what it was called.

I want a feature, I post it with a promise of my $20 or $200, whatever.

Other people sign up, with their own donations.

When a developer submits their answer, and it satisfies the requirements, they get the money.

On a completely different tack, So where are the commercial applications that do the sort of thing you need? Has anyone written to them to tell them they have a customer if they will port to Linux?

Libervis

Jul 05, 2008
9:50 AM EST
Yep I think that's it, software bounty.

> So where are the commercial applications that do the sort of thing you need? Has anyone written to them to tell them they have a customer if they will port to Linux?

Adobe Premiere comes to mind, but there are other shareware apps. The thing is, though, I don't want to use proprietary software if I can help it so just porting a proprietary program to Linux isn't exactly the goal. I could then just run it in WINE or have a dual boot with XP.

The goal is to have an equivalent that is freedomware and which is actually very good for the job. That is what I find more worth paying for.

I guess, maybe a software bounty can be organized to buy out the source code of a given shareware app and then release it under freedomware terms, but that'd be a lot more money perhaps than paying a programmer to make a new one (or improve on the code of the existing freedomware app).
dinotrac

Jul 05, 2008
9:55 AM EST
>I guess, maybe a software bounty can be organized to buy out the source code of a given shareware app and then release it under freedomware terms

That's more or less what happened with Blender.

The company producing Blender was folding up shop, and a foundation raised money to buy out the IP and turn it into free software.
Libervis

Jul 05, 2008
9:58 AM EST
dinotrac:

I'll just say this. War doesn't bring more freedom, but less. People believe otherwise and sometimes believing otherwise makes them feel better (as victims of war), but... reality is agnostic to both feelings and beliefs. It's one thing to respect and admire someone who fought for what he believed in. It is another to accept what he believed in as your own beliefs just because he believed strongly enough to die for it.

But I understand that it's hard to accept this when it's beliefs of your loved one that are in question.

Regards
dinotrac

Jul 05, 2008
10:06 AM EST
>War doesn't bring more freedom, but less

Blanket statements lead to blanket mistakes.

War is a purely bad thing. There is nothing good to be said about it.

Bondage is also a bad thing. I don't think there is much good to be said about it, either.

When people are determined to enforce bondage with guns, you get to stay in bondage or go to war.

It's better for bondage to disappear on its own, but, in the meantime, I will not begrudge the chained their fights for freedom.



Libervis

Jul 05, 2008
10:15 AM EST
dinotrac, I'll quote what I said about that point earlier:

"I wont deny it that many people going into such wars genuinely believe they are protecting freedom, but I cannot agree. Outright wars like the ones US people are fighting in the name of freedom are like using shotgun to kill a wasp that stinged you and then shooting up the whole of their hive in the name of "protecting" yourself. Can you see where I'm getting at?"

Also:

"Also, you speak of these invaders as if there was a constant threat of a bunch of foreigners invading your own home as soon as the US army retires. Ever read "1984"? This state of constant fear is what justifies never ending warring and stripping away of freedom in the name of your own security."

Do you want USA to be Oceania or the free country?

The problem is that war contributes to more bondage than it resolves.

If someone came to your house to rob or hurt you then you can use defensive force. Same applies to all other people. But launching full scale military assaults on the country from which you *think* the attacker originated and calling that "defense" is just ludicrous.

tuxchick

Jul 05, 2008
10:35 AM EST
Ye gods. I vote for marking this thread "totally pointless" and closing it.
Libervis

Jul 05, 2008
10:47 AM EST
Not really pointless.. just containing too many points on too many fronts for a single thread. :P

I don't mind if it's closed really.. just don't delete it. I don't think that'd be warranted.

Cheers
Bob_Robertson

Jul 05, 2008
11:06 AM EST
> The problem is that war contributes to more bondage than it resolves.

I can suggest "Crisis and Leviathan" http://www.mises.org/store/Crisis-and-Leviathan-P138C0.aspx

and The Myth Of War Prosperity http://mises.org:88/2_HMC_Higgs

Mplayer works fine for that one, I've noticed that XINE doesn't resolve the redirect. Bummer.

Higgs also has a YouTube series that is just, well, "uncompromising" is the word that comes to mind. Frightening, too, War and Leviathan. Here it is, segments collected on one page: http://www.lewrockwell.com/higgs/higgs64.html

With transcript: http://www.mises.org/story/2749

thenixedreport

Jul 05, 2008
5:05 PM EST
Libervis,

Check your private mails here. ;)
Libervis

Jul 05, 2008
7:07 PM EST
I did and I also commented again on Helios's blog. I actually posted there much earlier, a couple of comments which clarify where I'm coming from and also express certain agreements... but they need to be approved.

Cheers
thenixedreport

Jul 05, 2008
8:30 PM EST
He's probably asleep right now. It may take a while.
Bob_Robertson

Jul 06, 2008
5:40 AM EST
What? He SLEEPS?

hkwint

Jul 06, 2008
6:01 AM EST
Please bear in mind what Ken said:

"We spend more time arguing about philosophy and technique than we do actually getting anything done." Many words have been 'spoiled' in this thread since he said so.
helios

Jul 06, 2008
6:38 AM EST
What? He SLEEPS?

Rarely and then only begrudgingly. I despise my physical need for a third of my life to be wasted on unconsciousness. It's been suggested that short-sleepers are simply psychological protesters that mentally wire themselves to only need 4 hours of sleep a night. Who knows?

Libervis - I've approved and submitted every comment that has come to the blog. That spam comment about some cms tool for blogging prompted me to do the moderation...hopefully I can put it back on unrestricted mode here in a bit. I will monitor responses for another 3 days and if there are no more incidents, I will put it back the way it was. If there are comments you posted that were not submitted, please take the time to reconstruct them. I will search to make sure they've not been herded into my spam folder as well.

I would point to Larry Cafiero and I as a model of FOSS collaboration....and please, not on a personal level, it's not like we've found the cure to the common cold. I mean on a functional and pragmatic level. Larry and I have strong and opposing viewpoints and philosophies on almost everything but we decided early on that none of them were important enough to get in the way of what we both see as a Critical project at a Critical time.

I am sure once we get the train into the station, there will be time to disembark and rip each other to shreds. Somehow though, I think that the personal bond that develops between political rivals is put into proper perspective by working toward a common goal. When it's done...if it's ever "done", I believe we will not only see the practical side of these partnerships, but the healing properties of them as well.

si vis pacem...para bellum

h

gus3

Jul 06, 2008
7:13 AM EST
@helios:

http://www.1ts.org/~kcr/metabolic.html
Bob_Robertson

Jul 06, 2008
7:15 AM EST
> si vis pacem...para bellum

Let's see.... that would be, "in reference to the elephant, use a Luger"?







it's a joke. laugh.
Libervis

Jul 06, 2008
7:41 AM EST
Well, I agree Helios..

About comments, I submitted another comment last night in response to thenixreport which was neither long nor containing any links, but isn't approved so either I'm on some automated blacklist for some unknown reason or I don't know.. I was posting with my google account. I'm not sure I should bother posting again in those three days if it's never going to be submit.

I'm not sure I'll be able to word a longer of these posts (a response your your comment) the same way I did then, unfortunately. But the extreme summary of the first one was that I don't want to hide where I said who I am, and the second expresses reasoning behind my disagreement with your philosophy of sacrifice and deserve which is in short the fact that I'm a voluntaryist (and what that means). The second one, though, also points out how much we agree on that we need better marketing for Linux and freedomware, where I actually find myself even closer to your point of view on that specific issue than I was before (when I was a Free Software purist).

And to show I am not quitting support for what you, Larry, Landy and others are doing I've made a little donation to Lindependence. I use Arch Linux, so let it be in their name for what it's worth. :)

Cheers

dinotrac

Jul 06, 2008
7:58 AM EST
>And to show I am not quitting support for what you, Larry, Landy and others are doing I've made a little donation to Lindependence. I use Arch Linux, so let it be in their name for what it's worth. :)

In my humble opinion, that changes nearly everything. The ability to tolerate strong differences without letting them overwhelm areas of agreement or, at least, common cause is one sign of a developed mind.

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!