Another example of how to bastardize your free OS
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| wind0wsr3fund Jul 31, 2006 7:32 AM EDT |
Macromedia Flash should be avoided since it is not freedom-granting/respecting software. Furthermore, HOWTOs like this only serve to help newcomers avoid learning about software freedom. |
| SFN Jul 31, 2006 7:46 AM EDT |
Quoting:Do you not see your comments (not just here but in other threads as well) as pretentious? I'm trying to not focus on the content for a moment and just on the form. Let's suppose everyone here agrees that your comments are full of life's greatest truths. Do you not realize how incredibly full of yourself you sound when you post? |
| dinotrac Jul 31, 2006 7:54 AM EDT |
SFN -- You gotta admire his self-image, though...you know, strolling down from the mountain top, clay tablets in hand. |
| SFN Jul 31, 2006 8:02 AM EDT |
I picture more the type of guy who dresses all in black and smokes french cigarettes talking about the oncoming revolution in an effort to lure disinterested co-eds back to his swanky efficiency bachelor pad for a night of Nina Simone, Che Guevara and Hide The Salami. |
| wind0wsr3fund Jul 31, 2006 8:41 AM EDT |
It's really *not* that difficult to have a sense and appreciation for what the free software movement is all about. I'm sorry if my convictions interfere with your Open Source (free as in freeloader) ideals. Slowly but surely, we will undo the harm done by the likes of Eric Raymond and the entire OS propaganda machine. You can thank me later for my part.... |
| devnet Jul 31, 2006 8:42 AM EDT |
SFN, Ew? |
| dinotrac Jul 31, 2006 8:53 AM EDT |
> You can thank me later for my part.... So SFN was right about Hide the Salami? For somebody who pretends to know what he's talking about, you sure don't know what you're talking about. To the best of my knowledge, there is no such thing as Open Source ideals. The Open Source Initiative is not about ideals. It is about marketing free software. If you are bothered that people use free software to make a living or to turn a profit, that's your problem. So long as the license allows it, then it is not illegal, immoral, or unethical. By the way, those convictions of yours - felony or misdemeanor? |
| wind0wsr3fund Jul 31, 2006 9:23 AM EDT |
dino, You're making a fool of yourself |
| jimf Jul 31, 2006 9:24 AM EDT |
> felony or misdemeanor? Only misdemeanor I'm afraid, but a lot of them... Definitely form a pervasive pattern. |
| dinotrac Jul 31, 2006 10:55 AM EDT |
>You're making a fool of yourself Goodness, no. My momma done done that for me. |
| r_a_trip Jul 31, 2006 11:50 AM EDT |
Wind0wsr3fund, don't bother. Don't think you can save the cattle going to the slaughterhouse. Freedom is for those who realize what it is. Who embrace it, nurture and protect it. |
| jdixon Jul 31, 2006 11:53 AM EDT |
> You're making a fool of yourself Oh, and my previous post on another thread. Add to that that you really do need to work on your sense of humor. |
| devnet Jul 31, 2006 12:09 PM EDT |
Quoting:Freedom is for those who realize what it is. Who embrace it, nurture and protect it.I like Freedom...I like to have the freedom to choose not to have freedom. I also like the freedom to express my opinions without fear of reprive. If there is a piece of software out there that is open source but not free, I like the freedom I have to choose said piece of software if it is right for me. I like the freedom I have to read any article I want to on the internet...I like the freedom editors here have to print any article that contains any information about Open Source AND/OR Linux. I like the freedom they also have to post anything they want to about Free and Open Source AND/OR Free and Libre Open Source Software. I like Freedom. Freedom is about choice. There's no lack of it here, nor lack of protection...there's just bad perspectives: http://tinyurl.com/os6ul *truncated my url darnit!~ |
| SFN Jul 31, 2006 12:12 PM EDT |
Shh! WindowsThreefund is trying to save us! |
| wind0wsr3fund Jul 31, 2006 12:36 PM EDT |
SFN, There's obviously no hope for someone like you. The newcomers, however, still have a shot. |
| SFN Jul 31, 2006 12:37 PM EDT |
Wow, you're noble. I may weep. |
| grouch Jul 31, 2006 12:41 PM EDT |
I have no problems with the warning issued in the opening comment of this thread. |
| wind0wsr3fund Jul 31, 2006 12:52 PM EDT |
devnet, "I like Freedom...I like to have the freedom to choose not to have freedom" This statement shows a real lack of perspective on your part and is born out of nothing but selfishness and short sighted vision. Only when you disconnect your computer from any and all networks and refrain from sharing files via sneaker-net will you be entitled to your freedom to choose not to be free. Until that happens, you have an ethical responsibility to nuture and protect the free ecosystem you dwell in. For many "open source" supporters, this will mean giving up a few luxuries like: 1. No longer running a cracked version of XP (because you didn't *pay* for it) 2. Choosing to buy a different video card *only* because free drivers are not available 3. Possibly losing out on all that wonderful (useless IMO) flash content (until gnash is ready) and finally......... the biggest sacrifice ....... 4. Learning to appreciate the value of freedom (hint: freedoms 0-3) over the practical side effects often touted by the OS folk. |
| devnet Jul 31, 2006 12:56 PM EDT |
SFN, If you're gonna weep, weep for me. I just papercut my eyelid trying to look inside an envelope containing my windows refund. |
| sbergman27 Jul 31, 2006 1:01 PM EDT |
Quoting:Macromedia Flash should be avoided Wow. I agree completely. I mean... I sooooooo agree with this that I just can't believe it. |
| wind0wsr3fund Jul 31, 2006 1:13 PM EDT |
"If you're gonna weep, weep for me. I just papercut my eyelid trying to look inside an envelope containing my windows refund." yes, that's another battle that needs to be fought. Are you offering your assistance or simply heckling from the sidelines? |
| jimf Jul 31, 2006 1:25 PM EDT |
> Wow. I agree completely. I mean... I sooooooo agree with this that I just can't believe it. Now you're just being facetious Steve, we know you hate flash ;-) |
| dinotrac Jul 31, 2006 2:03 PM EDT |
Anybody here notice that W3f lacks either the smarts and or gonads to directly address the serious question I put to him? Again, W3F, who seeks to hand down wisdom from the mountaintop... If you're so freakin' smart and understand so much...how come you don't even know what Open Source is? Any reference to "Open Source ideals" -- your phrase, not mine -- is utterly idiotic. Marketing programming have goals, not ideals. They are about tactics and strategies, not about religious crusades. So -- tell us what you actually know. Give us some indication that you have actually read and or understood something. Anything. Anything at all. |
| wind0wsr3fund Jul 31, 2006 2:39 PM EDT |
dinotrac, You really are an idiot to get so hung up on 1 word when used in the context of a much larger concept. Open your eyes and see the forest beyond the trees. If you refuse to open them, stop trying to waste my time. |
| dinotrac Jul 31, 2006 2:48 PM EDT |
I thought so. W3F has no clue what he's talking about. As to one word used in the context of a much larger concept, your lack of understanding is what makes the word important. The word betrays you as knowing nothing about the topic you bellow on about. For all you talk about people opening eyes, that advice would be a lot easier to swallow coming from someone who opened his own eyes long enough to learn a thing or two. |
| wind0wsr3fund Jul 31, 2006 2:53 PM EDT |
talk about a troll... |
| sbergman27 Jul 31, 2006 3:02 PM EDT |
Troll? Where? What troll? KIll, kill, kill the troll!!! |
| wind0wsr3fund Jul 31, 2006 3:11 PM EDT |
above my last post. The guy can't even spell my nick properly, let alone add value to a thread.... |
| dinotrac Jul 31, 2006 3:44 PM EDT |
Hey Stevie -- Notice how w3f doesn't mind castigating all of us, but, when faced with the same treatment he likes to dish out, crumples up into the fetal position? And, of course, still cannot establish that he has ever bothered to learn about the things he claims to be so passionate about. That's not even a troll, or, if a troll, a pretty lame one. |
| sbergman27 Jul 31, 2006 3:56 PM EDT |
Well, I'm really glad you have emphasized the role of Open Source as a marketing effort for Free Software. That's what it is and always was. Stallman, I've been noticing lately, takes every opportunity to paint it as a competing movement, and to paint its followers (whoever they may be) as only caring about convenience. Very black and white. And a deception unworthy of a Free Software leader. I can see that Winney, here, has bought that view of things hook, line, and sinker. To be honest, its one of those untruths that has been repeated so much that I sometimes forget that there is not really any such thing as an Open Source movement separate from the Free Software movement. Just people within the same community with different opinions about the best way to advocate the same things. |
| dinotrac Jul 31, 2006 4:14 PM EDT |
Steve - Yes. I understand RMS's concern that people will buy the marketing without grasping what lies behind it. I think he makes a strategic blunder by trying to conjure up a non-existant movement. At some point, people are smart enough to figure out that Open Source software is free software and that the people doing Open Source software are free software people. The easiest way to compare Open Source software with free software is to make a list of free software, then photocopy it, and lay the lists side by side. Rather than some great opposing force, that's opportunity knocking and doors opening. The real problem, I think, is that it's a great thing that RMS didn't do. Just like the Linux kernel. |
| sbergman27 Jul 31, 2006 4:33 PM EDT |
Quoting:The real problem, I think, is that it's a great thing that RMS didn't do. Just like the Linux kernel. Oooooooooooooooooo... Jerr-RY! Jerr-RY! Jerr-RY! Jerr-RY! ;-) |
| dinotrac Jul 31, 2006 4:55 PM EDT |
Steve - ;0) PS: Gettin' the trailer cleaned up real good now. May even fix the broken windows and cut the grass. Well, fix the windows OR cut the grass. Well, think about both. Maybe. Unless Dr. Phil's on. |
| dcparris Jul 31, 2006 5:56 PM EDT |
Although the two camps were starting to split already, it was ESR who made the goofy claim that we no longer need the GPL. ESR - for better or for worse - has tried to distinguish the OSI from the FSF as much as possible. I find it pretty incredible that people trying to 'market' Free Software try so hard to distance themselves, ney even deny, the moral side of the equation. That pretty much sets them up as something different, in my mind. When I raised the issue with Stallman, who reviewed my book, he specifically stated that "Open Source" is really "Free Software". It's just that the OSI doesn't acknowledge the moral aspect. You cannot separate the moral ideals from the movement - or the license. It's impossible - regardless of how hard people try. It's like joining and promoting a religious group without believing the faith. Consider that someone might promote the Constitution of the US, but without acknowledging the freedom that undergirds our Constitution. Indeed, we actually did that for the first 90 years of our existence - freedom was only valuable for some, or to a point. Stallman sat down to write the first libre program because he wanted freedom. Note that point. He didn't wind up with freedom because he wrote a program; He wrote a program to gain freedom. I understand those who use non-free software until the libre software becomes viable. However, to develop/use non-free software, just for the sake of using it, is essentially going backwards. Put another way, "It was for freedom that Richard Stallman developed the GNU GPL. Stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of restrictive licenses." ;-) |
| helios Jul 31, 2006 6:10 PM EDT |
The newcomers, however, still have a shot...... LOL...ok, I've lurked long enough. And for those who have suffered the following rhetoric, forgive me. It is too valid to not use. Everyday computer users do not want to become part of a movement. They want to use their computers to do their job, steal music, look at prOn and steal more music. Somewhere in there, they may even glean a productive moment in accomplishing some actual work. Now, to be honest, the Stallman podium banging does nothing but scare new people off. they came to Linux, excuse me...GNU/Linux for freedom. Now they are being told that to be a "good Linux User" they have to subscribe to a particular political/philosophical dogma? BTW, I agree with Stallman on the gpl3 issues here and I think Linus is WAY to laid back on this issue...of course, even a broken clock is right twice a day. I dun think so Lucy...I assemble and install "hybrid" units for all my new people. Yes, I actually do leave them with links to 0-4, ESR's brilliant rant on CUPS and a homepage of this website. I leave them brunolinux, Newsforge and Tuxmachines...the browser is vainfully branded with Lobby4Linux, so they know where that is. But to place such a heavy caveat upon them regarding FOSS philosophies and beliefs. It ain't gonna happen. One must mature into an ability to make his own decisions. To bludgeon someone straight away with Stallman-istic literature is counter productive. They may begin to believe that with MS, all they had to deal with was a convicted monopolist. Now...Given the choice that you have no alternative or the alternative was obviously inferior, would you sacrifice your health and ultimately your life in order to maintain your FOSS beliefs? Microsoft or proprietary software to maintain your life sustaining treatments or OSS offerings that lack the necessary updates and features needed to be functional? Inquiring minds want to know. |
| Libervis Jul 31, 2006 6:18 PM EDT |
The response to wind0wsr3fund's original post was IMO totally off. It is completely disrespectful and shortsighted. You practically hijacked the thread and repurposed it for bashing on wind0wsr3fund and then RMS based on your (mis)conceptions from before. There was nothing pretentious about the original post and nothing that would indicate that he is "full of himself". What your posts reveal instead is that it is you who don't have enough tolerance for his perspective and viewpoint to at least allow him to say something like this without immediately bashing him. And the fact that grouch, an editor here, recognized the original post as a valid warning didn't stop you. Why don't you jump on grouch then? In fact I believe grouch and wind0wsr3fund share alot of common ground regarding Free Software. |
| jimf Jul 31, 2006 6:20 PM EDT |
> To bludgeon someone straight away with Stallman-istic literature is counter productive. Many of them will eventually come around to it. Some never will, but that's the choice you have to give them. In any case it's something that has to be carefully considered and not rammed down a body's throat. |
| Libervis Jul 31, 2006 6:25 PM EDT |
dcparris: well said. Helios, newbies aren't forced to subscribe to political camps or dogmas. They are merely being asked and encouraged to consider the importance of their own freedom and how important it is to value it. At the root of it there is nothing greatly philosophical about it. If you loose sight of something you'll sooner or later loose *it* as well. If you stop caring for your freedom, it's easy to give it up. It's as simple as that. |
| jdixon Jul 31, 2006 6:43 PM EDT |
Libervis: > The response to wind0wsr3fund's original post was IMO totally off. You know as well as everyone else that the response on this post was not the result of only this post. The response is the result of numerous posts over a fairly sustained period. While I am sympathetic to wind0wsr3fund's position, he has brought such responses on himself. |
| grouch Jul 31, 2006 6:49 PM EDT |
Over and over you see the pattern repeat: Someone tries GNU/Linux because it's affordable, practical and alleviates the winfear and most other damage inflicted on users by MS. Some stop there. Many go on to learn about the freedom in free software that provides the restoration of control of their computers and data. They learn that the root of the problem of loss of control is surrendering that control to vendors, one EULA, one "app" at a time. It is so very easy to fall right back into the cage they sought to escape in the first place. Those who divorce freedom from free software do not help the prey avoid the cage. |
| sbergman27 Jul 31, 2006 6:51 PM EDT |
ESR may have coined the term Open Source. But it now has a life of its own. And ESR is just a member of the community like the rest of us. He's not a God figure and he does not represent anyone but himself, much as he likes to think otherwise. Don't fall for it when he acts like he is speaking for his followers. He doesn't have any. He's a pompous, self important windbag who happens to have written a few interesting things. Nor does RMS own the community. The community has a life of its own. I happen to prefer the term Open Source in a lot of situations. I have my own ideas about what is the most effective way to promote Open Source, Free Software, a rose by any other name, whatever you want to call it. They may or may not coincide with those of others in the community, but that's OK. I find the divisivness that the perception of an Open Source / Free Software dichotomy promotes to be disturbing and counterproductive. |
| tuxchick2 Jul 31, 2006 6:53 PM EDT |
Libervis, I agree that noobs aren't going to automatically be repelled by sane, rational discussions of Free Software. You know, discussions, where all parties involved listen some, talk some, and an actual exchange of ideas takes place. In fact a lot of folks find the principles behind Free Software attractive, it's not a hard sell. windozerefund is a troll. Defend him all you want to, he is not an asset to the beliefs he professes to support. Hardly anything windozerefund posts here is sane, rational, part of an actual discussion, or constructive in any way. Just bludgeoning. --start grammar nitpick:-- Please, it's "lose". http://loseloose.com/ --end grammar nitpick-- |
| jimf Jul 31, 2006 6:54 PM EDT |
> sympathetic to wind0wsr3fund's position Not any more... wind0wsr3fund's rants are one of the most effective means of chasing potential new users away from Linux that I've seen to date. He couldn't so a better job if he were an agent of Microsoft. |
| helios Jul 31, 2006 7:01 PM EDT |
Daniel, I agree with you...we've discussed this at length, and we share more agreements than not. However...on the few occasions I have witnessed the absolute brow-beating of a new Linux User concerning the philosophies of the GPL and FOSS in general, it has been a disaster. It is important to remember, people remember negative comments about a product to a much greater degree than they do a positive one. We face an uphill battle the way it is. I have had to try and 're-recruit" a bruised newbie after a finger-pointing lecture on FOSS and the importance of its key points. Many times, it is presented as "you are either with us or against us. Some of us are willing to go to extrordinary lengths to promote and protect the GNU/Linux - FOSS model. Belief and participation in such though is still a matter of degree and preference. Above all else, these two factors must be understood and protected. I think we all know how people react to the for us or against us Ultimatum. |
| sbergman27 Jul 31, 2006 7:03 PM EDT |
> a better job if he were an agent of Microsoft And as we all know, Microsoft Corp. is a bunch of Nazis. |
| dcparris Jul 31, 2006 7:08 PM EDT |
Libervis:
>And the fact that grouch, an editor here, recognized the original post as a valid warning didn't stop you. Why don't you jump on grouch then? In fact I believe grouch and wind0wsr3fund share alot of common ground regarding Free Software. I actually have a great deal in common with Wind0wsr3fund. Yet he attacked me outright - and unjustly - in another thread. Interestingly, you were rather quiet then. |
| dinotrac Jul 31, 2006 7:24 PM EDT |
Rev - It's true that it's easy to think that ESR = Open Source, and ESR really did try to put a lot of distance between OSI and FSF. Maybe I'm too lax in looking at that as paranoid (well, c'mon, we are talking ESR) marketing -- ie, a fear of fear itself: that businesses will run screaming if you mention the philosophical underpinnings. You have good support for your position -- OSI co-founder Bruce Perens quit the OSI after a year or so convinced that ESR was running away from the philosophical roots of free software. When it comes to Open Source vs. Free Software (as opposed to FSF v OSI, or RMS vs ESR and the whole mess of prickly personalities tangled up in all of it), it is useful to look at some of what Perens said on resigning from the OSI: About a year ago, I sent out a message announcing "Open Source". Eric Raymond and I founded the Open Source Initiative as a way of introducing the non-hacker world to Free Software. Well, thanks to Eric, the world noticed. And now it's time for the second stage: Now that the world is watching, it's time for us to start teaching them about Free Software. Notice, I said Free Software, _not_ Open Source. Most hackers know that Free Software and Open Source are just two words for the same thing. One of the unfortunate things about Open Source is that it overshadowed the Free Software Foundation's efforts. This was never fair - although some disapprove of Richard Stallman's rhetoric and disagree with his belief that _all_ software should be free, the Open Source Definition is entirely compatible with the Free Software Foundation's goals, and a schism between the two groups should never have been allowed to develop. I objected to that schism, but was not able to get the two parties together. So, you are completely right to point out a schism between people. Let's face it, neither RMS nor ESR are the easy-going type and both have been known for , er, strong opinions. However, while ESR does not equal RMS, Open Source software equals Free software. ESR does not equal Open Source any more than RMS equals free software. And, even at his wackiest, I don't believe that ESR ever claimed that Open Source software was not free software. He just wasn't going to be the one to bring it up. I have no stake in ESR v RMS. I could care less. I do have a stake in the future of free software. I use it every day and love it. I hope the software and the freedoms upon which it is based outlive every petty argument we might ever have. I return to the bluntest statements Perens made: Most hackers know that Free Software and Open Source are just two words for the same thing. and Now that the world is watching, it's time for us to start teaching them about Free Software. And, Rev, if you've paid attention, I'm not blowing smoke on this. I've stated, in these forums, on more than one occasion, that OSI made a mistake in emphasizing the open source aspect of free software. While I completely understanding distancing OSI from FSF and RMS, it turns out that the most useful aspect of free software to business is not the source, but the freedom. |
| jdixon Jul 31, 2006 7:25 PM EDT |
jimf: I said sympathetic to his position, not to him or his posts. :) |
| jimf Jul 31, 2006 7:26 PM EDT |
Libervis: Don and many of the rest of us tried to get Wind0wsr3fund to recognize that you get poor or negative results when you walk over and pound people on the head with the GPL. A little diplomacy is much more effective. You believe in the GPL as strongly as Wind0wsr3fund, but you learned that lesson, and are a much more effective advocate because of it. For whatever reason, Wind0wsr3fund still doesn't get it. |
| Libervis Jul 31, 2006 7:44 PM EDT |
Quoting:I actually have a great deal in common with Wind0wsr3fund. Yet he attacked me outright - and unjustly - in another thread. Interestingly, you were rather quiet then. I may have missed the thread. There's way too much to read on LXer to read every thread. I agree about the need for a better and more diplomatic approach. I don't agree with the "for us or against us" attitude. I believe in encouragement and what I would like people to do is at least consider what we advocate, be open minded enough to ponder it a bit seriously and always be ready to listen. But at least in the context of this thread I saw wind0wsr3fund doing nothing wrong. I expected that he'd be given a chance for a proper discussion. You may believe he doesn't deserve one, but... did first comments posted to his thread opener really do any good? Maybe ignoring it would have been better, even if you believe he is a troll. |
| wind0wsr3fund Jul 31, 2006 8:00 PM EDT |
helios, "Everyday computer users do not want to become part of a movement. They want to use their computers to do their job, steal music, look at prOn and steal more music." This is disgusting. It's like asking an American to give up their appreciation of freedom for a lifetime supply of cheeseburgers. To be honest, I have no desire to be part of a movement myself. If the powers that be were not hell bent on denying us our freedoms, I too could have more time to participate in the activities listed above. If you seriously believe that "everyday computer users" do not deserve to learn about and benefit from freedoms 0-3, you're simply more dangerous than I thought you were and in fact, are the very enemy that I'm trying to educate them about. Hopefully, I'm wrong. |
| Libervis Jul 31, 2006 8:01 PM EDT |
sbergman27:Quoting:ESR may have coined the term Open Source. But it now has a life of its own. Indeed it does. But I'm not sure if I'd call that a good thing. As said once or few times earlier, "Open Source" term is a buzzword. Everybody wants to be "open sourcy" to be cool if you know what I mean. So yes, I can agree that many people using that term actually don't subscribe to the actual open source viewpoint initiated by the OSI founders. But this doesn't make this viewpoint less of a specifically "open source" thing nor did the term "open source" lose it's connection with that viewpoint. Many people will still refer to OSI for guidance and get the "freedom-free" picture (the incomplete picture). And it's so simple to call it Free Software to prevent any chance of that happening. I can live with using the term "open source" here and there to clue a potential newbie to the buzz, but then explain that it's actually free as in freedom software that got people buzzing around it in the first place. :) Quoting:The community has a life of its own. It sure does. But this community still consists of individuals that make their own choices, decisions and minds about certain issues. And while we could refrain from splitting this community into movements or camps we can't not to make a distinction between two distinct viewpoints and philosophies, the open source one and the Free Software one, which affect these individuals, their choices, decisions and minds. And for the sake of clarity and knowing where each of us stand I think this distinction shouldn't be blured as if it doesn't exist. |
| Libervis Jul 31, 2006 8:04 PM EDT |
wind0wsr3fund, Well, what helios described was merely the way alot of people feel, not the way they should feel, so certainly Helios didn't suggest he "asks" them to feel that way or to have their priorities messed up like that. |
| sbergman27 Jul 31, 2006 8:15 PM EDT |
Libervis, The term free software has its problems, too. It immediately brings to mind free as in freebie. It sounds cheap and crappy. The term "Open Source", I think, does a better job of capturing a flavor of freedom without the freebie connotation. Yeah, yeah, I know. I can just launch into an Oliver Wendell Douglas style speech about Software Freedom and the American Farmer. But often that would simply not be appropriate or productive. It's unfortunate that there is simply not a term for the software that really completely "works" in the English language. At least none that I can think of. |
| Libervis Jul 31, 2006 8:19 PM EDT |
dinotrac: You've actually made a great post upthere. ;) At least the conclusion is beautiful. But I would like to point out one point over which we may disagree. You say that Open Source equals Free Software even though RMS and ESR are the opposites. This may be true in some aspects, such as software licensing. At least in most cases software which is Free Software fits the definition of Open Source as well. There is however at least one aspect in which the two don't exactly equal. It is about association. The term Open Source is most of the time still by many associated with the philosophy of ESR and Linus Torvalds, both people who don't prioritize freedom above certain practicalities. The term Free Software is associated with the original GNU Project, FSF and RMS. Who keeps these associations alive? They themselves and their followers do. To blur that line here would be almost equivalent to saying that ESR and Linus share the same views in all things with RMS and the FSF. ESR and Linus branded their view as "open source" and RMS brands it as Free Software. As all of them are quite influential figures this "branding" has a far reaching effect. All I'd like to see really is to keep things clear, to put the distinction where it belongs. Otherwise we're just bluring the picture and that benefits noone. |
| wind0wsr3fund Jul 31, 2006 8:22 PM EDT |
Libervis, I'm willing to give helios the benefit of doubt here but thought I'd address the point anyway. I'm simply not a fan of the tired old "people are too (fill in human attribute here) to care about freedom" POV used to silence those of us that do. This is almost word for word, the line used by enemies of freedom to enlist their supporters. We need to stop entertaining this excuse to be ignorant and admit exactly the opposite. All people deserve the opportunity to first be informed of, then help protect our freedom. |
| Libervis Jul 31, 2006 8:23 PM EDT |
sbergman27: Well yeah.. neither term is perfect. In some countries like Brazil or Croatia we actually have a good term. Libre Software or (in Croatian) Slobodan Software are terms that say exactly what it is, but I can't directly translate it to english cause it doesn't have a word for it. Maybe english language should just adopt the word "libre". :) |
| sbergman27 Jul 31, 2006 8:32 PM EDT |
Quoting:Maybe english language should just adopt the word "libre". :)I'll put in a request to the language bureau. They *always* listen to me. ;-) While I'm at it, I think I'll request a change in pronunciation for the word "lose". It really should use a long 'O' sound. |
| Libervis Jul 31, 2006 8:33 PM EDT |
wind0wsr3fund: I can agree to that. I would just say that using that specific line doesn't necessarily make the one using it anti-freedom in any respect though. Sometimes it is even necessary to acknowledge the reality of things. But there is indeed probably a psychological side to using that line and cases where we'd be better off without it. It reminds me of the optimism vs. pesimism issue. Which of the two should we acknowledge more, that positive is going to happen or negative? Which of the two attitudes has a greater chance of stiring more motivation towards positive action? |
| Libervis Jul 31, 2006 8:35 PM EDT |
sbergman27: Quoting:While I'm at it, I think I'll request a change in pronunciation for the word "lose". It really should use a long 'O' sound. Oh, I can't agree more. :) |
| wind0wsr3fund Jul 31, 2006 8:37 PM EDT |
both outcomes must be given equal time IMO. |
| wind0wsr3fund Jul 31, 2006 8:47 PM EDT |
"While I'm at it, I think I'll request a change in pronunciation for the word "lose". It really should use a long 'O' sound." Yes please do that. It would make my life much easier. |
| helios Aug 01, 2006 3:05 AM EDT |
If you seriously believe that "everyday computer users" do not deserve to learn about and benefit from freedoms 0-3, you're simply more dangerous than I thought you were and in fact, are the very enemy that I'm trying to educate them about. Hopefully, I'm wrong..... I didn't say that the new user doesn't deserve to learn aobut these things. I stated that he doesn't deserve a trip to the emergency room to treat him for the beating he takes from FOSS extremists. All things in good measure. As stated above...give them ALL the information then let them make their own decisions. Again, I make sure every one of my new people has this info. Nuxified.org is a top bookmark, but then again, so is bittorent.com. And yes, I am dangerous...but to no one but those who attempt to take our freedoms and shackle us with DRM and Trusted Computing. As well...those who stand and beat on podiums as a way to address his audience is also painted with a warning sign. |
| dinotrac Aug 01, 2006 3:47 AM EDT |
>And it's so simple to call it Free Software to prevent any chance of that happening. I agree with you. I still use Open Source now and then out of habit, but I generally call it free software. BTW -- the capitalization is intentional. Some people have tried to call anything that makes the source available, regardless of the terms, open source. It ain't Open Source unless it's free. |
| SFN Aug 01, 2006 4:16 AM EDT |
Quoting:And the fact that grouch, an editor here, recognized the original post as a valid warning didn't stop you. Why don't you jump on grouch then? In fact I believe grouch and wind0wsr3fund share alot of common ground regarding Free Software. The way grouch responded is exactly why nobody jumped on him, just like the various responses to wind0wsr3fund are a result of his approach. Also, you'll notice that my original response was a quote. That's because it was asked before - twice, no less. He simply refuses to respond to any criticism. Witness dinotrac's question to him. He still has not responded to that either. No, that "one word" thing doesn't count as a response. He hands out condemnations like they were flyers for free cups of coffee but dismisses any criticism of his tactics as ignorant. As tuxchick said, he's a troll. I'm starting to doubt that he even believes what he says. He's just toying with people. Anybody who's been online for a long time has seen this scenario play out in chat rooms and fourms over and over. Work like this tends to kill off the community it infiltrates - just like the infiltrator wants it to. |
| devnet Aug 01, 2006 9:42 AM EDT |
Quoting:yes, that's another battle that needs to be fought. Are you offering your assistance or simply heckling from the sidelines?Just poking fun on this one :D No harm intended :) |
| dinotrac Aug 01, 2006 9:43 AM EDT |
>He hands out condemnations like they were flyers for free cups of coffee So that I can fully understand your point, are we talking Starbucks or Dunkin' Donuts here? |
| devnet Aug 01, 2006 10:11 AM EDT |
Quoting:This statement shows a real lack of perspective on your part and is born out of nothing but selfishness and short sighted vision. Only when you disconnect your computer from any and all networks and refrain from sharing files via sneaker-net will you be entitled to your freedom to choose not to be free. Until that happens, you have an ethical responsibility to nuture and protect the free ecosystem you dwell in.Ya got me pegged wrong on this one...I'm not short sighted...I'm actually WAAY to vague...because I'm looking not only for all the windowsr3fund's out there but all those people helios spoke about out there. I'm also not very selfish, otherwise I wouldn't take the time to explain crap to anyone about this concept...I'd be too selfish to participate in forum threads. Also, you contradict yourself quite well in the last paragraph saying I have an ethical responsibility...Since when? I have no responsibility at all...that's my freedom to choose if I want an ethical responsibility...not yours to assign me one. |
| dinotrac Aug 01, 2006 11:04 AM EDT |
devnet - >Since when? I have no responsibility at all...that's my freedom to choose if I want an ethical responsibility AAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!! Excuse my while I start the shower running...I'm about to need it. I believe that W is closer to right than you are on this... A free society does impose responsibilities on its citizens. Those responsibilities don't go as far as some would like -- but that makes sense. You impose too many responsibilities in the name of freedom, freedom goes away. Basically, respect the freedom of others, obey the law (tough to exercise freedom without civil order), participate in the machinery of citizenship. It makes sense. It is good and proper for a person to get a sense of satisfaction and self-worth for doing a good thing. That's hard to do when you realize that you had to do the thing you did. |
| SFN Aug 01, 2006 11:18 AM EDT |
Quoting:A free society does impose responsibilities on its citizens. I have to go with devnet on this one. Society can impose all it wants. If I feel that the responsibilities that society has chosen for me are BS then they are not mine. Look at it this way. Say your dad, Levon, decides that it is your responsibility to go into the family balloon business because that's tradition and the family plan. Now let's say that you, Jesus, loathe the family balloon business. You'd rather go to Venus. Is it your responsibility to sell cartoon balloons in town? |
| dinotrac Aug 01, 2006 11:49 AM EDT |
SFN - I'm not talking about cartoon balloons. Nor am I talking about license. I am talking about freedom. A free society imposes responsibilities on its citizens because a free society cannot otherwise exist. |
| wind0wsr3fund Aug 01, 2006 12:01 PM EDT |
"A free society imposes responsibilities on its citizens because a free society cannot otherwise exist." Well said dinotrac. |
| NoDough Aug 01, 2006 12:02 PM EDT |
>A free society imposes responsibilities on its citizens... Such as? |
| dinotrac Aug 01, 2006 12:27 PM EDT |
NoDough - Let us start with something simple: A responsibility not to take a big gun out and blow holes in people's heads because it gives you giggles. Will you accept that much responsibility? |
| NoDough Aug 01, 2006 12:38 PM EDT |
>A responsibility not to take a big gun out and blow holes in people's heads because it gives you giggles. I like the giggles. :-) |
| SFN Aug 01, 2006 12:41 PM EDT |
I think it's a pretty big stretch to equate murder with not trying to prevent software-for-profit. The cartoon balloon analogy was much closer. |
| NoDough Aug 01, 2006 12:43 PM EDT |
>A responsibility not to take a big gun out and blow holes in people's heads because it gives you giggles. Seriously, that's not a responsibility. If you are responsible for something, then you are in charge of it. I have a responsibility to my wife. I have a responsibility to my children. What responsibility do I have to the free society in which I live? Edit: OK, on re-reading "in charge of it" was a bad choice of words. Edit: If you are responsible for something, then you should see that it is taken care of. |
| wind0wsr3fund Aug 01, 2006 12:52 PM EDT |
"prevent software-for-profit." Again, the issue of software freedom should not be directly associated with one's ability to gain or lose profit. This 1 to 1 relationship has never existed and never will. Let's move on and stop confusing people. |
| SFN Aug 01, 2006 12:53 PM EDT |
Quoting:Let's move on and stop confusing people. Please do. |
| wind0wsr3fund Aug 01, 2006 12:54 PM EDT |
SFN, I was speaking to you |
| SFN Aug 01, 2006 12:55 PM EDT |
And I to you. |
| devnet Aug 01, 2006 12:59 PM EDT |
Dino and wr3f Responsibility and ethics are two separate things...you've been driven off point. Can ethics exist without responsibility. Yep. Ethics are only a series of moral values set forth by the dominant society surrounding indviduals. MORALS. That means if I have no moral values, I don't have to adopt said ethics. Afterall, morals are only personal principals adopted by individuals. If I want em, great! If not, so be it! It's entirely on an indvidual basis. So we have personal principals that everyone agrees on in a society which then become ethical values. So why do I need to ascribe to those? Sure I'll be ostracized in said society...but that's my freedom to do so isn't it? I have the freedom to choose to break the law just like I have the freedom to keep it. Should I then have to ascribe to FOSS/FLOSS philosophy upon my first forray into using it? Nope. Should I be told about it? Yes. If I want to make an informed decision I'd want that to happen. Should I be told to avoid all software that could possibly 'pollute' this "philosophy"? No Way. If I choose to NOT ascribe to Windowsr3fund's take on this and elect to let him know that I don't...he should respect my freedom to choose to NOT ascribe to it and he should back off. Just my thoughts on it. |
| wind0wsr3fund Aug 01, 2006 1:00 PM EDT |
SFN, I guess you don't quite get it yet so let me point out where your choice of words add confusion... "I think it's a pretty big stretch to equate murder with not trying to prevent software-for-profit." No one is trying to encourage or prevent software-for-profit. That has never been, nor will ever be a part of the free software community's agenda. RMS himself sold emacs for quite some time in order to fund himself. Now again, I'll ask you to stop confusing people. |
| dinotrac Aug 01, 2006 1:07 PM EDT |
NoDough -- Now you are getting closer. A free society does impose certain responsibilities... They come down to the basic bundle required to respect the freedoms of others...and not killing each other is part of it. In a way, following the laws (and even breaking them when the purpose is proper), taking care of your personal business, etc, is a matter of you taking care of society in the way you take care of your family. A free society places each of us in charge of its well-being. A free society respects us as adult human beings and, rather than play down to the lowest common denominator, leaves us tremendous leeway in determining how best to function as a responsible citizen. That's as it should be. Not everyone is equipped, for example, to find the next good way to help the environment, to help ensure that children get the education to pursue their dreams, or to care about, let alone watchdog, the licensing of software. It is burden and contribution enough for most of us to make a living (which, not incidentally, helps to fuel the economy), take care of our families (from whom the next greate something or another might arise), and be available if the need arises (as in the 9/11 attacks). |
| grouch Aug 01, 2006 2:21 PM EDT |
dinotrac: I think you could have stopped with, "respect the freedom of others" in your list of responsibilities. If citizens accept that responsibility, a free society is then formed. That society may be enhanced or damaged by laws not based on that foundational responsibility, but its existence is not determined by those laws. |
| rob_hughes Aug 01, 2006 2:27 PM EDT |
Things I find amusing: Those who want to save me from myself. Zealotry, in any form. Anyone who seems to think that they're speaking from on the mount. I think we have a trifecta of hilarity here. And last time I checked, trying to impose one's idea of freedom upon another against that other's will makes for a truly delicious irony. |
| jimf Aug 01, 2006 2:36 PM EDT |
> Those who want to save me from myself. The others are just annoying, but that one is both abhorrent and dangerous as it infringes on my rights. |
| grouch Aug 01, 2006 2:59 PM EDT |
jimf: Poor thing. You don't even realize how your comments show that you need to be saved from yourself. I shall gather thorny vines, vinegar and various defective power tools and come visit you to effect your salvation. (Web cam optional at addtional expense). |
| wind0wsr3fund Aug 01, 2006 3:00 PM EDT |
"And last time I checked, trying to impose one's idea of freedom upon another against that other's will makes for a truly delicious irony." No one is discussing "one's idea of freedom". Rather, we are discussing freedoms 0-3 that are well documented, well established, and well understood. |
| tuxchick2 Aug 01, 2006 3:03 PM EDT |
grouch, to get the full benefit of the power tools make sure you're standing in water. Or on water, if your holiness-fu is mighty enough. |
| wind0wsr3fund Aug 01, 2006 3:05 PM EDT |
ahhh tuxgroupie is back with her ever so informative wisdom... uh.. what was I supposed to learn from your post? In fact, any of your posts? |
| dcparris Aug 01, 2006 3:06 PM EDT |
SFN: I have to admit that using a family structure to convey a societal issue seems odd. Families are rather different units with different rules. Now, if a society imposes responsibilities, such as caring for elders or some such thing, that's a little more applicable. Still, Societies do impose responsibilities on people, whether formal laws or unwritten expectations. That does not change the need for a person to accept those responsibilities; nor does the person's refusal to accept them imply that those responsibilities have not been imposed. It is said that we break the law. The truth is that we break ourselves against the law, very much like throwing ourselves off a cliff or something. The law remains intact; it is you that is truly broken. Failure to accept the responsibilities imposed by society is exactly how many wind up in jail. The only consequences of failing to accept responsibilities imposed by the FOSS society is the loss of stature in the community. There is no brick and mortar jail for such people. |
| jdixon Aug 01, 2006 3:18 PM EDT |
> uh.. what was I supposed to learn from your post? In fact, any of your posts? Remember my ealier comment about your sense of humor? That would apply here. |
| jdixon Aug 01, 2006 3:23 PM EDT |
Dino: > It is said that we break the law. The truth is that we break ourselves against the law, very much like throwing ourselves off a cliff or something. The law remains intact; it is you that is truly broken. Well, there is the Law, and then there are laws. The Law being the often disputed natural law upon which harmonious human interactions are based. For it, your comment is defintely true, as by acting against it you are acting against your basic nature. It is less true for the laws passed by human agencies, which may bear little resemblence to the Law. I acknowledge that some dispute the very existence of said Law, but that's their loss. A good argument can be made that the GPL is a valid application of the Law to software, in that it acts in the best interests of human nature and harmonious human interactions. |
| wind0wsr3fund Aug 01, 2006 3:23 PM EDT |
I just can't help but admire RMS' ability to tolerate ignorance. How he does it day after day (after day) is beyond me. All the power to him... |
| jdixon Aug 01, 2006 3:26 PM EDT |
> How he does it day after day (after day) is beyond me. Well, that's obvious. Now, how can you learn from his good example? :) |
| tuxchick2 Aug 01, 2006 3:32 PM EDT |
jdixon, I think of the GPL as a sterling implementation of "trust, but verify." And a canny application of carrot and stick. The carrot is very large- you get a huge high-quality code base to build on, perhaps some contributions from cool people, and geekcreds for good work. The stick is rather small; GPL violators are pressured to come into compliance. And that's all. No monetary damages, no lawyers getting fat while the case drags on until everyone dies or goes broke. All in all it's a work of genius. As far as laws and social responsibilities go, that's a moving target. My grandmother had a saying: "The hard thing to do is probably the right thing to do." |
| jimf Aug 01, 2006 3:34 PM EDT |
> about your sense of humor? Hard to work on something that doesn't exist. |
| dinotrac Aug 01, 2006 3:43 PM EDT |
Wow.... Waxing philosophical and everything. Grouch: Yes. We tend to codify a bit more than that, but that is the essential, or, as a certain famous rabbi said many years ago, love one another. |
| grouch Aug 01, 2006 4:07 PM EDT |
tuxchick2: >"Or on water, if your holiness-fu is mighty enough." Alas, I've been unable to stand upon the waters lately, as I've allowed too many lost ones to survive treatment. If you ever withhold the lash, or ungrounded portable circular saw, out of sympathy for the plight of the newbie caught in the clutches of Upgrade-or-Unemployment, you're sunk. |
| Libervis Aug 01, 2006 4:08 PM EDT |
I agree with dinotrac and wind0wsr3fund on social responsibility. I also agree with grouch in that it comes down to respecting freedom of others. That's basically what Free Software movement is about as well; respecting freedom of others. And in order to respect freedom of others you obviously need to acknowledge certain restrictions to yourself so that another can have freedom. In a murder example, killing takes away freedom to live. Restricting yourself from killing is hence a restriction that preserves freedom of another. On the largest scale it is a restriction that keeps freedom in a society, keeping it a Free Society. There are alot of less dramatic cases than murder though, of course. Software development and use is one of them. GPL here is a good example of a license that imposes certain restrictions on a software developer in order for another user *and* developer to have freedom. GPL gives freedom and protects this freedom through these restrictions. As such it is one of the best models of excercising social responsibility AKA respect for freedom of others. A quote that nicely fits this theme: "The love of liberty is the love of others; the love of power is the love of ourselves." -- William Hazlitt You ought to respect others if you love freedom because only then you deserve to have your own freedom respected by others. |
| Libervis Aug 01, 2006 4:12 PM EDT |
jdixon:Quoting:A good argument can be made that the GPL is a valid application of the Law to software, in that it acts in the best interests of human nature and harmonious human interactions. Exactly my friend. :) |
| dinotrac Aug 01, 2006 4:16 PM EDT |
OMG Libervis!!!!!!!!!!! >You ought to respect others if you love freedom because only then you deserve to have your own freedom respected by others. Just so freaking dead-on. I've been thinking about this a lot over the last couple of days. What occurred to me is that Richard Stallman himself, the bizarre crazy batty ascetic monk of free software, the unyielding high priest of freedom, the one so wacky that OSI was formed to make a curtain to shield business from the very sight of him -- in short, THE MAN HIMSELF, doesn't abuse people like the 5 and dime wannabes who keep sprouting up in our midst. Now -- he could be different in private. I don't have a personal relationship with the man, but... In the public writings and utterances I've seen, he is civil to everyone. Absolutely strong in his convictions, but articulate rather than abusive. If only W were to emulate RMS...that would be a different story. We could tell him he's all wet. We could disagree with his rigidity, we could tell him all kinds of things. We'd be talking about his positions, however, and not his rantings. |
| jimf Aug 01, 2006 4:43 PM EDT |
> Alas, I've been unable to stand upon the waters lately, as I've allowed too many lost ones to survive treatment. Tuxchick is right though, electroshock treatment does wonders for the patient. You may even regain your water walking abilities if you stand in the water with the patient while you administer the electroshock. In any case you'll feel better. |
| jimf Aug 01, 2006 4:49 PM EDT |
> If only W were to emulate RMS Yep. |
| dcparris Aug 01, 2006 5:05 PM EDT |
JDixon: You might want to renew your eyeglasses prescription. Consider this: "Dino: > It is said that we break the law. The truth is that we break ourselves against the law, very much like throwing ourselves off a cliff or something. The law remains intact; it is you that is truly broken. " Go back up and look at the username of the post you quoted. ;-) Dino: In my e-mail encounters with RMS, he has always been very respectful. Hard as iron in his views, but always respectful. He has never said to me, "You really are an idiot..." (see way back up there in the thread, where you were referred to as an idiot). I may, in fact, be an idiot, but Stallman has always treated me as though I am intelligent. |
| jdixon Aug 01, 2006 5:31 PM EDT |
dcparris: My apologies. Yes, in fact my perscription does need updated. :( |
| SFN Aug 01, 2006 5:37 PM EDT |
Quoting:Now again, I'll ask you to stop confusing people. Oh! I get it now. See, all I was asking you to do was move on. Guess you didn't get that part. |
| dinotrac Aug 01, 2006 5:46 PM EDT |
Rev - The difference, of course, is that Stallman absolutely understands and believes in what he says. It is his passion, his crusade, not a cudgel stick with which to declare his self-righteousness. |
| SFN Aug 01, 2006 5:48 PM EDT |
And RMS isn't being paid by Microsoft. .....or is he? |
| tripwire45 Aug 01, 2006 6:01 PM EDT |
I suppose I should be honored that my humble little tutorial spawned such a response. |
| tuxchick2 Aug 01, 2006 6:05 PM EDT |
Sorry, James. It's an excellent howto. I'm afraid it fell into the "we will end no whine before its time" zone. |
| wind0wsr3fund Aug 01, 2006 8:52 PM EDT |
tc - "jdixon, I think of the GPL as a sterling implementation of "trust, but verify." And a canny application of carrot and stick. The carrot is very large- you get a huge high-quality code base to build on, perhaps some contributions from cool people, and geekcreds for good work" I'm afraid you are mistaken again. A software license has nothing to do with the quality of the code. This is exactly the kind of nonsense touted by the Open Source propaganda machine. The only thing you are guaranteed as per the GPL, is code that respects your freedoms (0-3). Now as luck (or fate?) would have it, a very large base of code does exist under the GPL. However, quality is a subjective term at best and that is why we acknowledge it as nothing more than icing on the cake. This applies to many other adjectives as well incuding secure, featureful, rich, and extendable. The GPL's purpose is to grant freedoms 0-3 to the user and then prevent that user from denying others of those very same freedoms. Anything else that comes as a result of those freedoms is gravy. |
| dcparris Aug 01, 2006 10:09 PM EDT |
wind0wsr3fund: I would put it this way. No software license guarantees high-quality code. The GPL only guarantees that the quality of the code can be improved by anyone since people can access and modify it. It could also be degraded by anyone. However, TC is saying that there already exists a huge high-quality code base on which to build. That is accurate. There is a huge base of high-quality code that exists because of the GPL. Back in 1985, she wouldn't be able to claim the huge code base. Now, hoever, newcomers can be shown that and have something to get excited about. :-) |
| wind0wsr3fund Aug 01, 2006 10:16 PM EDT |
dcparris, You miss her subtle implication that GPL == quality code. This is a false prophecy and a dangerous sell since quality is a subjective term. It is more truthful to simply limit the discussion of what the GPL grants to exactly what it was designed to offer. |
| dinotrac Aug 02, 2006 4:05 AM EDT |
w3f - > It is more truthful to simply limit the discussion of what the GPL grants to exactly what it was designed to offer. So, the fact that the GPL really does give you access to a huge, high-quality codebase is not truthful? There comes a time when seeking subtle undercurrents degrades into mere paranoia. That time comes when it is impermissible to state simple facts. If there is a quibble to be had, it might be the characterization as huge. Most free software programs out there are not especially high quality, nor would you expect them to be. Some major projects, however, seem to derive a real benefit from being free -- some of the same benefits businesses get by incorporating. Free software licenses, including the GPL, provide a reasonable way to let a project outlive its original developers, and to invite outside resources into the crew. Free licenses allow major projects to flourish outside of corporate and governmental settings. They even provide a reasonable basis for competing corporations to work on the same project. It's also fair to suggest that the freedom to study and modify source is a quality boost in and of itself. It means that developers can alter the behavior of free software to meet your specific needs, and one definition of quality includes how well something does what you need it to do. |
| Sander_Marechal Aug 02, 2006 4:17 AM EDT |
> It is more truthful to simply limit the discussion of what the GPL grants to exactly what it was designed to offer. Tanslation: I want to frame the discussion in such a way that I win by default |
| dcparris Aug 02, 2006 5:49 AM EDT |
> You miss her subtle implication that GPL == quality code. This is a false prophecy and a dangerous sell since quality is a subjective term. It is more truthful to simply limit the discussion of what the GPL grants to exactly what it was designed to offer First, You're absolutely correct. I missed something that is not there. There is nothing in TC's statement that suggests that - it merely suggests that people might be drawn to the existing code base. Perhaps you could explain which part of her statement is "the inspired declaration of divine will and purpose"? As an ordained minister, with a Masters degree in theology (meaning I know at least one or two things about the subject), I fail to see where she has prophecied anything at all. Nor is there anything remotely dangerous in the idea that an existing base of code might contain a large amount of high-quality . Frankly, to dino's point, the word 'huge' could be fairly subjective as well. To me, there is a whole lot of code out there; in the grand scheme of things, it might be a mere fraction of the whole. But for an individual or an organization, there is a sizable amount from which to choose. I am told by more experienced DB folks that CHADDB is a high-quality MySQL back-end. The GPL is not the cause of that; I am. However, it does need improvement, and the GPL allows that. The GPL does, in fact, offer the possibility of high-quality code, specifically since that is the express intent of Freedom #3. After all, the freedom to improve the program implies quality. Even if quality is relative, it is nevertheless offered up as a possibility by the GPL. Naturally, the GNOME vs KDE debate brings up the issue of subjectivity. This does not detract from the implications of Freedom #3. Nor does it attempt to define "improve". |
| Libervis Aug 02, 2006 6:13 AM EDT |
I guess what windowsrefund tried to say is that GPL's prime purpose is not code quality, but freedom, and that would be correct. The thing is though that this freedom also allows for better quality code, even if that outcome wasn't the first goal. It does prove though that having freedom with software is better in all respects. :) |
| wind0wsr3fund Aug 02, 2006 7:43 AM EDT |
"Tanslation: I want to frame the discussion in such a way that I win by default" This comment is totally uncalled for. |
| sbergman27 Aug 02, 2006 7:50 AM EDT |
Wow. This thread is still going on. Any progress on either side? |
| dinotrac Aug 02, 2006 7:52 AM EDT |
>The thing is though that this freedom also allows for better quality code, even if that outcome wasn't the first goal. Though he did it in a clumsy way, W actually caused a deeper and more interesting question to bubble up: Why do we care about freedom, anyway? Is it some intrinsic good, in and of itself? Can we sit in a chair and say, "whoo-boy, just feel that freedom!!!"? Or is it important because freedom is an essential gateway to, and guarantor of other things? Or both? In that context, freedom may well have value because it offers one path to creating good code -- a way to protect IP that is tossed out into the world so that talented people can coalesce into projects that do great things. Maybe more an enabling, or catalytic, effect than a causal one. If so, it certainly seems like a non-trivial benefit to me. |
| dcparris Aug 02, 2006 7:56 AM EDT |
steve: Progress? Who wants progress? We're having too much fun slinging mud. ;-) |
| sbergman27 Aug 02, 2006 8:08 AM EDT |
Dean, Well, then don't drink too much soda, and make sure to be home by 10. |
| tuxchick2 Aug 02, 2006 8:59 AM EDT |
Libervis, you sound like an abused spouse making excuses for your abuser. The problem isn't windowrefund's opinions on Free Software; it's his continual personal attacks, nitpicking, refusal to answer direct questions, continual criticizing, belittling, judging, attacking, and fault-finding, and complete absence of constructive activity. Pure troll. If I were queen of LXer I would have banned him long ago; I don't believe in tolerating poison. Your support of him makes me doubt that anything you say is worth listening to. Ask yourself if any of this fits. You don't have to report back here, just have a quiet, honest moment alone with yourself: "A troll is an attempt to start a prolonged flame war, a fierce argument with rude, personal insults. Usually, a troll is an article that is so outrageous, insulting and stupid that you feel you _have_ to reply. " http://www.faqs.org/faqs/cultures/irish-faq/part01/section-6... |
| Libervis Aug 02, 2006 9:32 AM EDT |
tuxchick2: I didn't defend him with my last comment nor am I defending him anymore. I did enough. I simply took a statement made and acknowledged my approval of that statement, regardless of who said it, adding my own opinion to it. Bah I don't want to be seen as a windowsrefund advocate, but should I act as if I don't agree with a bit of something he says even though I do just so that I don't end up looking as a defender? Most of you have said that you agree to some things he says, but don't appreciate the way he said it (with personal attacks and all). Well it's the same with me. Maybe I'm just playing a middleground. Love me or hate me for that. I don't care. :P |
| wind0wsr3fund Aug 02, 2006 9:33 AM EDT |
tc - I could say the same about your activity on this board. Despite that, I've promised dcparris that I'll treat you with a reasonable amount of respect despite the fact that I object to your style and overall message. In turn, you need to put an end to the name calling. It's simply childish and a waste of everyone's time. |
| Libervis Aug 02, 2006 9:37 AM EDT |
dcparris:Quoting:Why do we care about freedom, anyway? Both. :) Although I think that the first is in good part caused by the second. Simply knowing that you have freedom to do something even if you never actually fully excercise this freedom, is enough to cause that nice feeling you so vividly described with that whoo-boy example. :) In other words, it feels good to be free because then you can do.. something you want to do. Wether you want to do it or not, just knowing you're free to do feels good. |
| dinotrac Aug 02, 2006 9:41 AM EDT |
Lib... >In other words, it feels good to be free because then you can do.. something you want to do. Wether you want to do it or not, just knowing you're free to do feels good. Sounds like 1 and 2 are too tangled up to separate, which is what I think. By that logic, talking about consequences of freedom --- like the GPL's ability to make development communities possible, and the good software they can produce --- is completely reasonable in any discussion of , uh, "pure" freedom. |
| dcparris Aug 02, 2006 9:45 AM EDT |
sbergman27:
> Dean, Well, then don't drink too much soda, and make sure to be home by 10 You keep insisting that I'm dino for some reason. What did I ever do to you? Come to think of it, what did dino do? :-p |
| dinotrac Aug 02, 2006 10:21 AM EDT |
Rev - Don't worry, I'm not **too** offended. ;0) |
| devnet Aug 02, 2006 10:26 AM EDT |
man...people just skipped right over my last post. I guess it wasn't worth answering? |
| dinotrac Aug 02, 2006 10:30 AM EDT |
devnet .... Too much in too little time.... Actually, I was just responding to the notion that we have not responsibilities in a free society, or that we can pick and choose them. Different question for ethics altogether, true |
| devnet Aug 02, 2006 11:00 AM EDT |
lol...no worries though, I'm not an attention wh0r3 like SFN *ducks* |
| dinotrac Aug 02, 2006 11:27 AM EDT |
*ducks* Geese, cranes,pigeons, and homicidal crows, too. |
| SFN Aug 02, 2006 11:31 AM EDT |
Don't make me go get my boys. |
| jdixon Aug 02, 2006 1:15 PM EDT |
Dino: Double check, yep definitely dino this time. OK. > Why do we care about freedom, anyway? > Is it some intrinsic good, in and of itself? Seriously. Well, people more learned than I have concluded that, as far as we can tell, we're made that way. It appears to be an intrinsic trait of human beings to desire freedom. This appears to be counterbalanced by an almost equally strong desire for security and/or stability. If they're correct, it's sort of asking like why do ducks care about water. |
| dcparris Aug 02, 2006 2:13 PM EDT |
Oh the irony! Ducks caring about water would come up in a discussion related to Dapper Drake. |
| rob_hughes Aug 02, 2006 2:30 PM EDT |
*No one is discussing "one's idea of freedom". Rather, we are discussing freedoms 0-3 that are well documented, well established, and well understood.* Oh, bull hockey. We're talking about you wanting articles such as the one you're so obviously against censored by the editors of this site in order to stop the spread of the information contained in said article. This is precisely what I'm talking about. You're trying to impose your idea of freedom over me, the editors of this site, and all other F/OSS users. Get over it, and more to the point, get over yourself. Have I mentioned that I don't have a problem with binary blob drivers, as long as they work*? *Free drivers are preferred, just like I would prefer a world without software patents. But in the meantime, I'm mostly interested in getting stuff done. I'll leave the philosophical wars to those with the energy and time to care. |
| dcparris Aug 02, 2006 2:43 PM EDT |
>I'll leave the philosophical wars to those with the energy and time to care. So many people seem to feel that way, I often imagine Chesty Puller and the Frozen Chosen, surrounded by 16 Chinese Communist Divisions: "They're on our left. They're on our right. They're behind us, and they're in front of us. By golly, they can't get away from us this time!" Poor Chesty had to lead the only known retreat in the history of the US Marine Corps. I hope that's not the case for us. |
| dinotrac Aug 02, 2006 3:10 PM EDT |
Rev - No need to get too concerned. One retreat does not a route make. For that matter, deciding, on occasion, not to dive head first into the philosophical waters is probably a sign of good mental health, not moral depravity. Sometimes, ya just need to turn 'er on and get it done. |
| wind0wsr3fund Aug 02, 2006 5:38 PM EDT |
rob_hughes, "Oh, bull hockey. We're talking about you wanting articles such as the one you're so obviously against censored by the editors of this site in order to stop the spread of the information contained in said article" did you just wake up or something? Do I really need to repeat every point I've made over the course of this thread? |
| dcparris Aug 02, 2006 6:14 PM EDT |
> For that matter, deciding, on occasion, not to dive head first into the philosophical waters is probably a sign of good mental health, not moral depravity. I don't know if I buy that or not, Dino. What's the starting bid? |
| jimf Aug 02, 2006 6:35 PM EDT |
> No one is discussing "one's idea of freedom". Rather, we are discussing freedoms 0-3 that are well documented, well established, and well understood.* you keep acting like those freedoms are unrelated to the real world and to other freedoms. It doesn't work that way. The truth is far more complex than your narrow set of absolutes wind0wsr3fund. If you insist on dealing with 0-3 as a perfectly isolated theory, then I suggest that you retire to a cave and reflect on you navel, as, that would have just about as much meaning. > "Oh, bull hockey. We're talking about you wanting articles such as the one you're so obviously against censored by the editors of this site in order to stop the spread of the information contained in said article" Well, you might want to review that one cause it makes no sense a tal. but I think you're trying to say that somebody (LXer I think?) is trying to censure (you I guess?).... I think You've been given more than enough latitude in expressing your opinion on LXer, and more than enough rope to hang yourself. > did you just wake up or something? Do I really need to repeat every point I've made over the course of this thread? Now there ya go with the personal abuse again... |
| dcparris Aug 02, 2006 9:14 PM EDT |
> Well, you might want to review that one cause it makes no sense a tal. but I think you're trying to say that somebody (LXer I think?) is trying to censure (you I guess?).... I think You've been given more than enough latitude in expressing your opinion on LXer, and more than enough rope to hang yourself. Um, I hate to break this to you jim, but he was quoting rob_hughes there. rob was making the point that wind0wsr3fund seems to want LXer to censor the news. That does seem to be his aim, though it is possible that I (along with others) am misinterpreting his attitude/behavior/words. While I certainly don't mind editorializing, I refuse to censor the news. That is not merely wrong - it's downright treacherous. It harms the reputation of LXer as a trustworthy news source. Worse, it would serve to impair the vision of those who must work in a world that is still dominated by non-free software and that way of thinking. In short, this is LXer, not Radio Saigon. |
| jimf Aug 02, 2006 10:55 PM EDT |
> Um, I hate to break this to you jim, but he was quoting rob_hughes there. rob was making the point that wind0wsr3fund seems to want LXer to censor the news. Ahh.. I guess I need to clean my glasses... missed the >... the wording of that is still very confusing... And, yes Don, I know that you'd never censor the news :D. |
| sbergman27 Aug 03, 2006 5:59 AM EDT |
> You keep insisting that I'm dino for some reason. I get you two confused. Let's see, you're the one with the pig, right? :-) |
| NoDough Aug 03, 2006 6:53 AM EDT |
>I get you two confused. Let's see, you're the one with the pig, right? :-) Hey! Half that pig is mine! ;-> |
| sbergman27 Aug 03, 2006 7:04 AM EDT |
> Hey! Half that pig is mine! ;-> Well, I can see that I'm just digging myself in deeper. OK. The pig's under a joint copyright. ;-) Has LXer considered offering some sort of group policy vision care thing? I've noted a sharp increase in vision complaints since that pig photo was published. |
| dcparris Aug 03, 2006 7:36 AM EDT |
Sorry, jim. I should have clarified that I wasn't directing that part at you, specifically. It was aimed more at any hecklers we might have in the crowd. |
| dcparris Aug 03, 2006 7:43 AM EDT |
>Has LXer considered offering some sort of group policy vision care thing? I've noted a sharp increase in vision complaints since that pig photo was published. Oh great! Now we'll have to hire Boies and Co. to sue you for stealing the copyrighted pig, and we'll use your failing vision as proof. "Your honor, we're requesting all of Mr. bergman27's eye-care records dating back to his great-grandmother's first record. We know he's hiding the stolen pig we copyrighted - that pig is _our_ unintellectual property because we saw it first, your Honor..." Must be something in my coffee these past two mornings. |
| sbergman27 Aug 03, 2006 7:53 AM EDT |
I ain't got no pigs here! And I'm callin' IBM right now. Just you wait and see! The Scopes Monkey Trial is going to fade, by comparison, in the history books when compared to the IBM vs Lxer Pig Trial. Yessiree. And I'm gonna do it, too! ;-) |
| jimf Aug 03, 2006 8:03 AM EDT |
>Has LXer considered offering some sort of group policy vision care thing? I've noted a sharp increase in vision complaints since that pig photo was published. Not that vision isn't an issue for some (I'd sure opt for the group policy), but, I'm pretty sure that some of this is the equivalent of the 'dog ate my homework' excuse of the younger set. |
| dcparris Aug 03, 2006 8:20 AM EDT |
Well, this monkeying around sure beats a flame war any day. |
| jimf Aug 03, 2006 8:24 AM EDT |
Never discount 'monkeying around'. It's hard to have a meaningful discussion if you've lost your sense of humor. |
| NoDough Aug 03, 2006 8:49 AM EDT |
Quoting: >Has LXer considered offering some sort of group policy vision care thing? I've noted a sharp increase in vision complaints since that pig photo was published. Quoting: Well, this monkeying around sure beats a flame war any day. Pigs and dogs and monkeys, oh my! This place is a zoo. |
| jdixon Aug 03, 2006 8:50 AM EDT |
> It's hard to have a meaningful discussion if you've lost your sense of humor. I can't think what recent conversations could possibly have brought that to mind. Surely you're not accusing anyone here of lacking a sense of humor. :) |
| dcparris Aug 03, 2006 8:52 AM EDT |
I love it. In fact, I can get pretty serious about monkeying around: http://research.uvsc.edu/machiel/orangutan.jpg |
| jimf Aug 03, 2006 8:57 AM EDT |
> I can't think what recent conversations could possibly have brought that to mind. Surely you're not accusing anyone here of lacking a sense of humor. : /jimf ' shoves tong very hard into cheek' |
| dinotrac Aug 03, 2006 9:05 AM EDT |
/jimf ' shoves tong very hard into cheek' Jimf -- Hope you're recovering. Next time try shoving your tongue into that cheek. Much less painful. |
| dek Aug 03, 2006 9:09 AM EDT |
Since we're now monkeying around, I *almost* commented something to the fact that I need the group vision policy because I couldn't tell for sure which was which! Being a relative newcomer I decided not to post that comment. ;-) BBQ escargot anybody? Escargot and BBQ sauce should go well together! (Sorry if I offend anybody's epicurean sensibilties.) Don K. |
| dcparris Aug 03, 2006 9:18 AM EDT |
> BBQ escargot anybody? Escargot and BBQ sauce should go well together! (Sorry if I offend anybody's epicurean sensibilties.) Sounds like a delightful blend of Southern American and French cuisine to me! |
| jimf Aug 03, 2006 9:19 AM EDT |
> group vision policy Ahh.. the advancement of Linux, FOSS, the GPL, monkeying around... Not necessarily in that order. I guess you could also throw 'world peace' in there somewhere. |
| jdixon Aug 03, 2006 10:04 AM EDT |
> BBQ escargot anybody? Grouch, you'd better check on the status of your snails. |
| jimf Aug 03, 2006 10:22 AM EDT |
> BBQ escargot anybody? The French coming up with a defense against attack snails? I suppose it was inevitable. The constant arms race and all. |
| rob_hughes Aug 06, 2006 1:12 PM EDT |
> did you just wake up or something? Do I really need to repeat every point I've made over the course of > this thread? Well, I almost came back with a long flame, but I see now that you're just regurgitating stuff you've read and may or may not have actually thought about, thus the rather thin skin. Come back after you've matriculated and we'll see if you're capable of independent thought. But in case you're wondering, most americans have given up freedom for a lifetime supply of (relatively) cheap gas and greasy cheese burgers. That's why the US has the honor of being the fatest nation on earth. |
| NoDough Aug 07, 2006 10:22 AM EDT |
>Come back after you've matriculated and we'll see if you're capable of independent thought. Since when has matriculation encouraged independent thought? I've observed the opposite effect. |
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!