- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
We Should Stop Fighting Microsoft
|
|
|
Comments (67)
47 earlier comments in the full thread.
It has been explained, by myself and jd, your being a troll.
No you haven't explained. You've asserted.
Examples please.
But of course, the reason you don't supply examples, the reason you don't answer my questions with anything other than assertions, is because you cannot provide me with examples that support your assertions.
So your preference is to continue to assert, and then when your bluff is called, assert that I am trolling.
Is that really the best argument you can provide in support of your statements above.
Face it, I've called your bluff, found you wanting, demonstrated that your arguments, assertions really, as they are hardly well grounded arguments, are little more than beliefs based on faith, as insubstantial as a wafting cloud of vapour, nothing more than hot air.
Time, I think, for you to re-evaluate your beliefs.
Examples please.
But of course, the reason you don't supply examples, the reason you don't answer my questions with anything other than assertions, is because you cannot provide me with examples that support your assertions.
So your preference is to continue to assert, and then when your bluff is called, assert that I am trolling.
Is that really the best argument you can provide in support of your statements above.
Face it, I've called your bluff, found you wanting, demonstrated that your arguments, assertions really, as they are hardly well grounded arguments, are little more than beliefs based on faith, as insubstantial as a wafting cloud of vapour, nothing more than hot air.
Time, I think, for you to re-evaluate your beliefs.
RMS believes proprietary software should be abolished, should his view win then there will be no choice at all for user or developer, how hard is that to drum into your trollish little brain?
Your being a troll, you have called nothing and your assertions that you have some how scored a point is fictitious. Its your refusal to follow simple logic that is allowing you to delude yourself.
I'm calling you a troll, your being a troll, use your )(#$^&&*@#$% brain for something other than holding your ears apart and use logic.
Your being a troll, you have called nothing and your assertions that you have some how scored a point is fictitious. Its your refusal to follow simple logic that is allowing you to delude yourself.
I'm calling you a troll, your being a troll, use your )(#$^&&*@#$% brain for something other than holding your ears apart and use logic.
Quoting:RMS believes proprietary software should be abolished, should his view win then there will be no choice at all for user or developer, how hard is that to drum into your trollish little brain?
Yes that is what it appears he believes. However that is not currently the case, and it is difficult to see how that can ever be the case. I suppose it's possible that sometime in the future Free Software advocates will have sufficient Political influence to call for the banning of Proprietary Software, but I'm pretty sure even then such a thing would be considered unconstitutional. Additionally that has nothing to do with the 4 Freedoms, as enumciated by Richard Stallman. So I will repeat my question.
Quoting:In what way is your freedom to choose impacted by Richard Stallmans freedoms?
Quoting:Your being a troll, you have called nothing and your assertions that you have some how scored a point is fictitious. Its your refusal to follow simple logic that is allowing you to delude yourself.
I never claimed to have scored any points, I merely claimed you have no examples to give me, and that because of that you probably need to re-evaluate your beliefs.
Additionally you have merely asserted that I am a troll,you have not demonstrated that your assertion is true.
It's actually you inability to provide examples, as requested that demonstrates your inability to follow simple logic. You appear to be basing your beliefs on something that isn't fact.
Quoting:I'm calling you a troll, your being a troll, use your )(#$^&&*@#$% brain for something other than holding your ears apart and use logic.
Oh dear, such language. Having a bad hair day are we. Now if you give me some examples of how Stallman's freedoms are impacting on your freedom, we can move on a bit. You never know, if you can manage to provide some good examples, you might cause me to reconsider my beliefs.
Give me something more than a restating of your beliefs, and conjecture.
> ...one of us will reevaluate their beliefs, the other will not.
You have to give someone a valid reason to reevaluate their beliefs, Tracyanne. The fact that you can't do so is no fault of his(?) beliefs. My beliefs are very carefully considered. You couldn't give me any reasons I haven't already considered either.
> Then you've already answered the question your first sentence begged.
I'll have to take your word for that.
> In what way is Richard Stallman wrong to assert that Free Software is ethically more desirable than proprietary Software?
He's wrong because he's asserting a claim over software which is not his. The creator of the software is the one who gets to make that call, not Stallman. The software belongs to them, they are the only ones who have the right to make that choice, and their choice may be made on the basis of conditions which Richard Stallman has never even dreamed of, much less considered.
> In what way is your freedom to choose impacted by Richard Stallmans freedoms?
The specific four freedoms as enumerated by the FSF? It's not. By Richard Stallman's view of ethics and stated desires? He would not allow for the choice of proprietary software.
You have to give someone a valid reason to reevaluate their beliefs, Tracyanne. The fact that you can't do so is no fault of his(?) beliefs. My beliefs are very carefully considered. You couldn't give me any reasons I haven't already considered either.
> Then you've already answered the question your first sentence begged.
I'll have to take your word for that.
> In what way is Richard Stallman wrong to assert that Free Software is ethically more desirable than proprietary Software?
He's wrong because he's asserting a claim over software which is not his. The creator of the software is the one who gets to make that call, not Stallman. The software belongs to them, they are the only ones who have the right to make that choice, and their choice may be made on the basis of conditions which Richard Stallman has never even dreamed of, much less considered.
> In what way is your freedom to choose impacted by Richard Stallmans freedoms?
The specific four freedoms as enumerated by the FSF? It's not. By Richard Stallman's view of ethics and stated desires? He would not allow for the choice of proprietary software.
azerthoth, may I try to help you a bit?
Tracy,
in reply to your question:
Azerthoth has said repeatedly:
I do not understand why you are bent upon seeing examples when the answer to your question is quite simple and direct. Of course, RMS has so far not managed to coerce the software world into his view which is besides the point (just as MS has failed to coerce its view). Its his views that are being questioned not his ability to coerce others.
Tracy,
in reply to your question:
Quoting: In what way is your, or my, or any one else's freedom to choose being removed by Richard Stallman?
Azerthoth has said repeatedly:
Quoting: RMS believes proprietary software should be abolished, should his view win then there will be no choice at all for user or developer
I do not understand why you are bent upon seeing examples when the answer to your question is quite simple and direct. Of course, RMS has so far not managed to coerce the software world into his view which is besides the point (just as MS has failed to coerce its view). Its his views that are being questioned not his ability to coerce others.
@JD
I don't disagree with your statement, in that it is certainly not his right to assert a claim over any software but his own. i don't, however, see where he has asserted a claim over anyone's software. It is his opinion that Proprietary Softweare is unethical, he has, I believe, stated this, and indeed why he believes proprietary software is unethical, many times, and stated clearly, I thought, why he won't use it, and why he believes no one else should. i fail to see where such statements are any attempt to claim what belongs to others.
They do indeed.
This is most likely true.
I believe that last sentence is conjecture. first, as i've already stated in a previous post. Even if free Software Advocates were to gain suffient Political influence to call for the abolition of Proprietary Software, I'm pretty sure that such a thing would, under US Constitutional law, be cinsidered unconstitutional, second, Richard Stallman claims to be a Libertarian, which I am pretty sure is a political viewpoint that precludes such interference from the State.
Quoting:He's wrong because he's asserting a claim over software which is not his.
I don't disagree with your statement, in that it is certainly not his right to assert a claim over any software but his own. i don't, however, see where he has asserted a claim over anyone's software. It is his opinion that Proprietary Softweare is unethical, he has, I believe, stated this, and indeed why he believes proprietary software is unethical, many times, and stated clearly, I thought, why he won't use it, and why he believes no one else should. i fail to see where such statements are any attempt to claim what belongs to others.
Quoting:The creator of the software is the one who gets to make that call
They do indeed.
Quoting:The software belongs to them, they are the only ones who have the right to make that choice, and their choice may be made on the basis of conditions which Richard Stallman has never even dreamed of, much less considered.
This is most likely true.
Quoting:The specific four freedoms as enumerated by the FSF? It's not. By Richard Stallman's view of ethics and stated desires? He would not allow for the choice of proprietary software.
I believe that last sentence is conjecture. first, as i've already stated in a previous post. Even if free Software Advocates were to gain suffient Political influence to call for the abolition of Proprietary Software, I'm pretty sure that such a thing would, under US Constitutional law, be cinsidered unconstitutional, second, Richard Stallman claims to be a Libertarian, which I am pretty sure is a political viewpoint that precludes such interference from the State.
@ Krisum
And as i have repeately pointed out this is not currently the case, which makes it at best conjecture, NOT a Fact.
I have asked repeatedly for examples of where anyone's Freedom has been impacted by richard Stallmans Freedoms
And I am continually told that it is his desire is to impact yours, mine and other people's freedoms. That is conjectjure.
What I want is examples of where it is currently occuring, that is all I have asked for. is that too much to ask?
Quoting:"RMS believes proprietary software should be abolished, should his view win then there will be no choice at all for user or developer"
I do not understand why you are bent upon seeing examples when the answer to your question is quite simple and direct. Of course, RMS has so far not managed to coerce the software world into his view which is besides the point (just as MS has failed to coerce its view). Its his views that are being questioned not his ability to coerce others.
And as i have repeately pointed out this is not currently the case, which makes it at best conjecture, NOT a Fact.
I have asked repeatedly for examples of where anyone's Freedom has been impacted by richard Stallmans Freedoms
Quoting:In what way is your freedom to choose impacted by Richard Stallmans freedoms?
And I am continually told that it is his desire is to impact yours, mine and other people's freedoms. That is conjectjure.
What I want is examples of where it is currently occuring, that is all I have asked for. is that too much to ask?
@JD
This is absolutely true.
Once again true. It is a simple fact of life that some people when presented with facts simply prefer to ignore them. That's a choice a they make, one they are free to make, as far as I'm concerned. I've discovered that many people simply prefer to keep their current beliefs, no matter how out of touch they are with the known facts.
I'm quite certain they are.
It certainly sounds that way. The thing is are you prepared to consider new Facts, and re-evaluate your beliefs based on those facts, as they come to light, or are you convinced, due to the careful consideration you've obviously given your beliefs, that new facts have no value where your beliefs are concerned.
Quoting:You have to give someone a valid reason to reevaluate their beliefs, Tracyanne.
This is absolutely true.
Quoting:The fact that you can't do so is no fault of his(?) beliefs.
Once again true. It is a simple fact of life that some people when presented with facts simply prefer to ignore them. That's a choice a they make, one they are free to make, as far as I'm concerned. I've discovered that many people simply prefer to keep their current beliefs, no matter how out of touch they are with the known facts.
Quoting:My beliefs are very carefully considered.
I'm quite certain they are.
Quoting:You couldn't give me any reasons I haven't already considered either.
It certainly sounds that way. The thing is are you prepared to consider new Facts, and re-evaluate your beliefs based on those facts, as they come to light, or are you convinced, due to the careful consideration you've obviously given your beliefs, that new facts have no value where your beliefs are concerned.
Quoting: And as i have repeately pointed out this is not currently the case, which makes it at best conjecture, NOT a Fact.Which is where you are not making any sense. What is "not currently the case"? RMS's belief that proprietary software is unethical is a fact and has been consistent at least since the inception of FSF.
Quoting: What I want is examples of where it is currently occuring, that is all I have asked for. is that too much to ask?Examples of what occurring? Are you really in want of quotes from RMS where he says that proprietary software is unethical?
Quoting:Which is where you are not making any sense. What is "not currently the case"? RMS's belief that proprietary software is unethical is a fact and has been consistent at least since the inception of FSF.
Yes it is indeed, and it has been so since the inception of the Free Software Foundation, and probably even before.
I'm refering to the assertion that he would ban Proprietory Software, an assertion that has been made many times on this thread.
I'm further refering to the assertion that "because he would ban Proprietary Software", that he has limited people's software freedoms.
Quoting:Examples of what occurring?
Examples of people's freedoms being limited, by what has been conjectured, that "because he would ban Proprietary Software" if he had a chance to do so, he IS limiting software freedom.
Quoting:Are you really in want of quotes from RMS where he says that proprietary software is unethical?
No, I'm quite comfortable with the fact of him having stated, on numerous occassions, that Proprietary Software is unethical. I have read such statements, of his,and heard him state it in interviews.
Krisum, please read this thread from the begining. It has been asserted by Az, and i think JD, as well, that Richard Stallman is limiting someone's software Freedoms, yours,. mine, somebodies, because he believes that Proprietary Software is unethical. This assertion, that Richard Stallman IS limiting Software Freedoms, has been made, as i understand it, on the grounds that at some time in the future Richard Stallman may try to ban Prorprietary Software.
I have asked on a number of occassions for examples of how he is doing this (Limiting Software Freedom), but have to date received no examples, merely more assertions.
Quoting:Its his views that are being questioned not his ability to coerce others.
No Krisum, it is not his views that are being questioned. It is that he is limiting someone's software freedom that is being alleged.
> I believe that last sentence is conjecture.
He's stated his position several times over the years. I merely conclude that he would act on his beliefs if he had the power to do so since, AFAIK, he's never stated that he wouldn't. The vast majority of people do.
It's possible that you are correct and he would not act on his beliefs in such a case, but I'm somewhat sceptical myself. Fortunately, we're unlikely to ever find out.
> The thing is are you prepared to consider new Facts,
I do so all the time. But there are precious few new facts concerning the fundamental nature of reality, and the ones we do find are seldom applicable to my beliefs.
He's stated his position several times over the years. I merely conclude that he would act on his beliefs if he had the power to do so since, AFAIK, he's never stated that he wouldn't. The vast majority of people do.
It's possible that you are correct and he would not act on his beliefs in such a case, but I'm somewhat sceptical myself. Fortunately, we're unlikely to ever find out.
> The thing is are you prepared to consider new Facts,
I do so all the time. But there are precious few new facts concerning the fundamental nature of reality, and the ones we do find are seldom applicable to my beliefs.
Quoting:I do so all the time. But there are precious few new facts concerning the fundamental nature of reality
Interesting, in that it was pretty much what I expected you to say.
Quoting:He's stated his position several times over the years. I merely conclude that he would act on his beliefs if he had the power to do so since, AFAIK, he's never stated that he wouldn't. The vast majority of people do.
It's possible that you are correct and he would not act on his beliefs in such a case, but I'm somewhat sceptical myself. Fortunately, we're unlikely to ever find out.
Well, at the moment, I feel it is rather moot. What I am currently interested in is the following.
First: A statement was made, in this thread that He is in fact, right now, limiting people's freedoms, by promoting the 4 freedoms of Free Software. What I want to know is in what way he is limiting people's Freedoms. for example, I don't see my freedoms being limited, by his promotion of the the 4 Freedoms, nor do I see them being limited by his stated belief that Proprietary software is unethical. I am still free to choose Free Software or Proprietary software, and so far as i can tell so are you.
Second: I'm interested in understanding how one compromises on Freedom without losing Freedom.
There's no way ever that RMS is going to be able to outlaw proprietary software, so I don't see the point in discussing that. On the other hand, I think most here would agree that Microsoft poses a real risk of limiting our freedoms (e.g. through proprietary Windows-only technologies that lock out Linux users and that may become popular enough to matter). Saying that RMS is the same as Microsoft, only opposite, is meaningless.
> Interesting, in that it was pretty much what I expected you to say.
Well, since it's true, why wouldn't I say it? We're still learning, but it's a slow process. And integrating what we learn is an even slower one.
> First: A statement was made...
I'm not the one who made that statement and, as noted in my earlier response, I don't agree; so I'll have to let someone else answer.
> Second: I'm interested in understanding how one compromises on Freedom without losing Freedom.
In theory, by live and let live. By recognizing that people have the right to disagree, even about the nature of Freedom. That's the theory, of course. Theory and practice are only the same in theory, not in practice. :)
> Saying that RMS is the same as Microsoft, only opposite, is meaningless.
Only if you're incapable of distinguishing between type and degree.
Well, since it's true, why wouldn't I say it? We're still learning, but it's a slow process. And integrating what we learn is an even slower one.
> First: A statement was made...
I'm not the one who made that statement and, as noted in my earlier response, I don't agree; so I'll have to let someone else answer.
> Second: I'm interested in understanding how one compromises on Freedom without losing Freedom.
In theory, by live and let live. By recognizing that people have the right to disagree, even about the nature of Freedom. That's the theory, of course. Theory and practice are only the same in theory, not in practice. :)
> Saying that RMS is the same as Microsoft, only opposite, is meaningless.
Only if you're incapable of distinguishing between type and degree.
This isn't an argument, it's just contradiction :)
No, it isn't. :-P
> ...it's just contradiction :)
Since when is contradiction a contra-indicator of an argument? :)
Since when is contradiction a contra-indicator of an argument? :)
Comments on this story are closed.
It did indeed.
On the contrary, all subsequent questions I've asked have been an attempt to eleicit EXAMPLES of where your freedoms have been denied. Instead of giving me examples you have merely restated that your freedoms are being denied.
In addition I have asked you to explain to me "How does one compromise on Freedom without losing those Freedoms?" You have also failed to answer this, in fact you have simply ignored it.
When you answer my questions by providing me with examples to my questions, instead of merely restating your assertions, I will probably understand why i am wrong to believe as I do. Until then I must continue to ask you.
In what way is your freedom to choose impacted by Richard Stallmans freedoms?
"How does one compromise on Freedom without losing those Freedoms? Because you seems to think that I am refering to Richard Stallmans Software Freedoms here, let me clarify. How does any one comprise Freedom without losing that Freedom?
and the additional question, now
In what way is Richard Stallman wrong to assert that Free Software is ethically more desirable than proprietary Software?