I Managed to miss unbecoming editorial comment....
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| dinotrac Aug 03, 2006 1:08 PM EDT |
Rev - Don't know how I overlooked it the first time, but you may wish to revisit your comment. The author doesn't talk about bowing down to anybody, but does suggest some compromise could be found. It might or might not be a good idea, but that's another issue. We have come to a pretty sad place when compromise is viewed as some sort of evil. Compromise is often the price for buy-in. Without some very nasty compromises (can you say 3/5?) the United States would not have come into being, and I think the world would be a poorer place for that. Please Note that the US continues to survive, getting by these days without slavery and with women voting. Would he world be a better place without the compromises that let that happen? |
| jdixon Aug 03, 2006 2:19 PM EDT |
Dino: > Would he world be a better place without the compromises that let that happen? No to make too big a point of it, but the slavery issue was NOT decided by compromise, but rather by armed force. |
| dcparris Aug 03, 2006 2:23 PM EDT |
(1) Linus is the antagonist. I could be wrong, but he strikes me as one of the carpetbaggers. (2) If it weren't for someone standing up for my freedom back in the '80's, I would still be stuck back in Windowsland, singing Swing Low, Sweet Chariot... You may not think it's that bad, but I sure did. (3) I don't want DRM. (4) I will have to write a new license that prohibits DRM if this compromise occurs. And no, I won't care if you don't want to use it, either. I will also have to re-release CHADDB under the new license. (5) This is certainly NOT the time for a compromise - that would be extremely dangerous in this situation. Where will it lead? Next thing you know, Ubuntu will be calling home without my permission - just like Mac/Win systems do. And you can't say that won't happen. |
| sbergman27 Aug 03, 2006 3:08 PM EDT |
Well, what is perfectly fine as a comment may not be appropriate as an editorial comment. With great power comes great reaponsibility and all that sort of rot. Also, there seems to be an implicit assumption here that the anti-drm provisions of GPLv3 do more good than harm. Perhaps I missed it, but I don't see where it's been established. Do we have a consensus on that? |
| dcparris Aug 03, 2006 3:57 PM EDT |
Well, DRM is harmful; it does a heckuva lot more harm than it could possibly do good. Anti-DRM is good. It just seems that people are actually 'siding with' Linus, instead of fighting the DRM. They're all gonna push Stallman to budge, and the problem is that, with enough pressure, Moglen just might do that. It wouldn't likely be Stallman. Frankly, the article wreaked, of "look, just compromise so we can all go home." That's an attitude we can do without. I can just see Washington and Co. compromising with the King back in 1776. |
| sbergman27 Aug 03, 2006 4:08 PM EDT |
I guess I still missed the part where we determined that GPLv3d2 does more to prevent the spread of DRM than to blunt the capabilities of Free Software to inhibit DRM. |
| jimf Aug 03, 2006 4:26 PM EDT |
> Well, DRM is harmful; it does a heckuva lot more harm than it could possibly do good. Anti-DRM is good. that does seem to be the crux of it Don. I really like Linus, and as an Engineer I understand exactly where he's coming from, An Engineer would rather not have other design considerations and imperatives imposed on him. Why would he want to accept responsibility for that? it's just a pita. Because of vested intrest, It's probably best for all of us that he isn't the one with the final decision. At any rate, I hardly see Linux going to hell in a handbasket because of a new GPL3. I think it was tuxchick who's mom told her " the hard choice was usually right thing to do". I'm thinking that's probably the case here. |
| dinotrac Aug 03, 2006 4:31 PM EDT |
jdixon - The compromises to which I referred are those made to allow formation of the country in the first place. Would it have been better to let the colonies go their own way, rather than find a compromise that allowed their union? |
| dinotrac Aug 03, 2006 4:44 PM EDT |
Rev - Linus a carpetbagger? He GPL'd Linux in 1992. That's 14 freakin' years, which is longer than 99% of all GPL'd software. A carpetbagger? Perhaps you missed his rather eloquent explanation of why he chose the GPL, and why he believes in it at http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/2/2/283 As far as being the antagonist, why would you even use such a term. If you're going to do that, at least be accurate about it. If there is an antagonist in this matter -- and I don't think there is -- it is RMS for trying to change an accepted and workable software license that has facilitated very much good. On a site like this one, Rev, I should think you would have an appreciation for people who passionately stake out their turf and argue for it. RMS and Linus come from different places and have different concerns. That's a good thing, not bad. Nobody -- no matter how smart, how committed, how selfless -- is infallible. Carpetbagger? Amazing. Let's see...just exactly where was GNU in 1992? Where are they now? Did the GPL make Linux or did Linux make the GPL? Doesn't matter for mouse nuts. What matters is that the discussion is legitimate. Disagreements are legitimate. Big hairy shouting matches are legitimate. Calling Linus a carpetbagger is legitimate...but you should know better. |
| dcparris Aug 03, 2006 4:51 PM EDT |
> I guess I still missed the part where we determined that GPLv3d2 does more to prevent the spread of DRM than to blunt the capabilities of Free Software to inhibit DRM. Any compromise that allows DRM does nothing at all to inhibit DRM. How do you stop DRM by allowing it? Dino: Some things are compromizable. Some things are not. DRM is not. sbergman27: I won't argue that fewer people will choose the GPLv3 in that case, but that's because they're the carpetbaggers anyway. They're in it to take advantage, not because it's libre. |
| dinotrac Aug 03, 2006 4:59 PM EDT |
Steve - >but that's because they're the carpetbaggers anyway. They're in it to take advantage, not because it's libre. Remembering, of course, that the Rev has a very strange definition of carpetbagger. To include Linus, the definition must be stretched so far as to be meaningless. |
| sbergman27 Aug 03, 2006 5:06 PM EDT |
Dean, (Mental note: He's the one without a pig co-owned by NoDough, and hereafter refered to as "The Pigless One".) You obviously have no sense of history. I mean, listen to this: http://www.gnu.org/music/free-software-song.ogg And then watch this: http://www.revolution-os.com/Free_Software_Song_video.mpg Everything the man touches turns to gold. We should be with him. |
| dinotrac Aug 03, 2006 5:21 PM EDT |
Steve: Uncle. Uncle!! Didn't you hear me? I said UNCLE!!! You sadistic, twisted animal. Mercy, that's all I ask. Just a little mercy. UNCLEUNCLEUNCLEUNCLEUNCLEUNCLE --- Please, in the name of all that is good, all that has ever been good, and all that ever will be good --- No more!!! UNCLE!!!!!!!! |
| NoDough Aug 03, 2006 5:45 PM EDT |
>I can just see Washington and Co. compromising with the King back in 1776. Actually, Washington and Co. spent a considerable amount of effort attempting to compromise. It was the King that refused. Similarly, I don't see RIAA, MPAA, et. al. offering any compromise. So.... |
| dinotrac Aug 03, 2006 6:02 PM EDT |
>At any rate, I hardly see Linux going to hell in a handbasket because of a new GPL3. Not if it's compatible with GPLV2, which is what Linux will be licensed under. |
| jdixon Aug 03, 2006 6:05 PM EDT |
> Frankly, the article wreaked, of "look, just compromise so we can all go home." That's an attitude we can do without. Agreed. What we want is to "do the right thing". That may or may not involve anti-drm, but that's what we should be concentrating on, not compromise for the sake of compromise. |
| dinotrac Aug 03, 2006 6:12 PM EDT |
jdixon: >, not compromise for the sake of compromise. Good lord. Somebody suggests that a compromise might be possible and it's "compromise for the sake of compromise." No wonder our country is so screwed up. How about compromise for the sake of a better result? To accomplish some good? Or is the ultimate honor to be be rigid and unyielding for the sake of being rigid and unyielding? |
| jdixon Aug 03, 2006 6:26 PM EDT |
Dino: > The compromises to which I referred are those made to allow formation of the country in the first place. OK. I don't think that was clear from context. It's always possible I'm being dense though. > Would it have been better to let the colonies go their own way, rather than find a compromise that allowed their union? That's a very good question. The same question could be asked about the civil war. I don't know the answer. There is no question the United States has been a force for good in the world, but it has also caused its share of problems. Since we cannot know how history would have flowed without it, I doubt it's possible to say for certain. |
| dcparris Aug 03, 2006 6:46 PM EDT |
> As far as being the antagonist, why would you even use such a term. If you're going to do that, at least be accurate about it. If there is an antagonist in this matter -- and I don't think there is -- it is RMS for trying to change an accepted and workable software license that has facilitated very much good. RMS is trying to deal with things he hadn't foreseen in the 80's, and you know that DRM does not fit into the GPL's purpose. Well, I did say I could be wrong about Linus. I still don't see him as defending our freedom. So far, only Stallman has been willing to do that. Linus wants the reciprocity more than the freedom. But the GPL was designed for the purpose of freedom, not reciprocity. Reciprocity is part of the GPL, but is not the main purpose for which it was written. The point of the reciprocity is to prevent someone from withholding the same freedom. Again, It was for freedom that RMS wrote the GPL. Therefore, stand firm for freedom. So many people seem to want Stallman to cave. "Let's hang RMS out there all by himself. No one likes him; he's a pain in the neck. He's a radical." Otoh, everyone could stand beside Stallman, and we could make a real difference. Stallman is leading, but no one is following. And he'll get the blame for that too. It will be all his fault because "he's the radical, a crusader - no one likes a crusader!" The reality is that we (the larger community) are the ones caving when we do not have to. NoDough, I sure wouldn't compromise with the MAFIAA. I guess that leaves us at war. The colonials decided that freedom was worth that risk. So do I. |
| dinotrac Aug 03, 2006 7:40 PM EDT |
Rev - I don't want Stallman to cave. I want SOMEBODY to do a little cajoling, SOMEBODY to do a little listening. SOMEBODY to have an inspiration. It's far easier to stake out your turf and just sit there. You don't have to go face to face with those annoying people who see things differently -- including those who have helped elevate your own star. You will certainly get a certain amount of back-slapping and congratulations for "doing the right thing." You might even be right. There may be no room for movement whatsoever. Seeking a compromise is harder and takes more courage. Your true believers will feel betrayed and will let you know. Nobody will be very happy because compromise tends to be what you can live with rather than what you want. And, of course, seeking to compromise and to accommodate doesn't mean that you'll be able to do it. Principles really do matter. But the effort will buy you more legitimacy, not to mention input and confirmation that your original course was, indeed, the best and only course you could take. I want Stallman to come out with the best damned license for the times that he can. That's all. |
| jimf Aug 03, 2006 8:38 PM EDT |
> I want Stallman to come out with the best damned license for the times that he can. That's all. As do we all dino, as do we all. |
| dcparris Aug 03, 2006 9:33 PM EDT |
Thanks Dino. The article just really ticked me off. Maybe I've been drinking to much java or python or whatever that black stuff is. I still feel like Linus is on the wrong side of the fence on this issue. |
| dinotrac Aug 04, 2006 2:40 AM EDT |
Rev - >I still feel like Linus is on the wrong side of the fence on this issue. That he may be. Question: All of this has made me decide that I don't understand the issue well enough. I've already decided that I don't understand the license well enough...but that's a whole 'nother thing. Are there any "best" DRM sites? The EFF site seems like a good place to start, although the EFF is an advocacy organization. I'm looking for that deep-down Ah ha!! I see!! So THAT's why everybody is so very up in arms. I have a pretty deep-down understanding of most free software issues, but I feel superficial on this one. |
| grouch Aug 04, 2006 3:17 AM EDT |
dinotrac: Forgive me for quoting myself, from a comment I left in the pile-up on Groklaw: Developers are users, too. Developers need: --From: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html The Free Software Definition What Tivoization does is render the source code just a collection of useless characters. They take from GPL coders, but they do not give back. There is no quid pro quo that Linus speaks about. The ability to take with no requirement for giving back is the weakness in the BSD license that nearly cost us OpenSSH. Tivoization takes Free software and then takes away the freedoms that make it Free software, thus doing worse than giving nothing back to those who created the software. The GPL has never pretended to be unrestricted. It restricts attempts to take away users' freedoms, whether the user is a programmer, a multi-national corporation, or a clueless newbie. GPL3 is a continuation of the spirit of GPL2. Personal note: I greatly respect the Linux kernel developers and greatly appreciate Linus Torvalds' considerable expertise and contributions. I do not believe he is right in the matter of GPL3, however. It was not Linux alone that has changed the world; it was GNU plus Linux plus a mountain of other Free software under other licenses, along with a great many developers outside Linux. The GPL is the linch-pin license, holding freedoms to code and the computers they run on. I stand with PJ, RMS, Moglen and an uncountable number of others in support of GPL3. --- Looks like I should add Don to that closing list I'm standing with (or behind?). Linus says a Tivo is defective hardware. That's correct, but it was carefully designed to be defective with the intent of circumventing those freedoms the GPL tries to protect. It's not unreasonable to adjust the GPL to prevent its use on hardware deliberately defective. |
| NoDough Aug 04, 2006 5:22 AM EDT |
Quote from unknown: He who succeeds in framing the debate wins. Congratulations to whomever framed this debate as Torvalds vs. Stallman. You are winning. You get to sit and watch the FLOSS community divided. To me, however, that's not the issue. The issue is the FLOSS community vs. the MAFIAA. If the DRM folks would either propose or adopt a technology that (1) protects their copyrighted material, and (2) allows those protections to be implemented with FLOSS software then I would be satisfied. However, those protections aren't the MAFIAA's goal. Their goal is CONTROL. They have achieved buy-in from Microsoft, Intel, et. al. And now they have succeeded in redirecting the energies of the FLOSS community to internal fighting. Until the debate is re-framed as "we will reject and fight any MAFIAA protections that cannot be implemented in FLOSS", we lose. |
| grouch Aug 04, 2006 5:35 AM EDT |
I don't see it as Torvalds v. Stallman. Each is simply the best representative of the opposing viewpoints regarding the DRM provisions of the license. Put another way, when Torvalds speaks, I listen. If it was only HP or Tivo or especially the MAFIAA belly-aching about the license... pffft! A big, hairy rat dropping would interest me more. |
| sbergman27 Aug 04, 2006 5:49 AM EDT |
Say we here at LXer determined for sure that the DRM provisions were either hurtful or helpful to Free Software. And say we sent a representative to deliver the message to Richard. What would happen then? Just curious. I'm a little skeptical about the year of debate thing. Does what we think really matter at all? |
| grouch Aug 04, 2006 5:54 AM EDT |
The license has been changed during the comment period due to comments received. You can check the handy 'diffs' on FSF Europe's site to see that. |
| jdixon Aug 04, 2006 6:25 AM EDT |
> What would happen then? RMS would require a convincing argument and an alternative solution, but if you gave him those I think he would concede the point and drop the anti-DRM provision. The alternative solution is probably more of a problem than the argument against the anti-DRM provision. Lots of people have made those arguments now. Has anyone come up with a better solution? Sometimes you do things to achieve a goal that you know aren't an ideal solution, simply because they're the best you can come up with. I think that's what we're looking at here. I'm sure Stallman would love a better solution, but I don't think anyone's come up with one. The goal RMS is working towards is too important to him for him to accept the staus quo. Unless a better solution can be found, the anti-DRM provisions are probably a given. |
| Sander_Marechal Aug 04, 2006 6:36 AM EDT |
Quoting:I'm a little skeptical about the year of debate thing. Does what we think really matter at all? I don't think much would happen. RMS has this "vision" of GPL3 and that's what GPL3 will become. The comments process is just a matter of fixing bugs, legal loopholes and better rewording and internationalization. It's not about making the vision better, just about better expressing it. The DRM debate is about what the vision should be, not about how it should be expressed. RMS will not yield. |
| sbergman27 Aug 04, 2006 6:37 AM EDT |
What if the verdict was that GPLv3 couldn't do a whole lot about DRM? He'd drop it because it wouldn't do any good. Right? |
| Sander_Marechal Aug 04, 2006 6:45 AM EDT |
I don't think so. I think he'd put it in just to get to Tivo. Now, if there was overwhelming evidence that it would be a bad idea then it might help. Then again, people thought the whole GPL idea was insane and would be terrible. Now look at it. I don't think RMS will deviate from his vision under any circunstance except legal reasons. |
| sbergman27 Aug 04, 2006 6:52 AM EDT |
As long as Tivo gets thrashed, that's good for all of us in the long run. |
| Libervis Aug 04, 2006 7:26 AM EDT |
There can be no compromise to DRM because DRM leaves no room for compromise. It is offensive and it does not contend and hence the only choice we have is to ban it. DRM is pure evil. It is technology working against its own continued development for the sake of petty interests by the top dogs. There's nothing to compromise there. As for Linus, he's either deliberately misunderstanding DRM provisions or just incapable of rising above his animosity towards FSF. His comments about FSF as religious crusaders doesn't help build the picture of him as a reasonable open minded debatant. Want more evidence? What about his inflamatory comment against GNOME? Is he really as close minded not to acknowledge and respect a different approach to something like a way to design a good GNU/Linux desktop environment? Apparently, if it were by Linus GNOME would never exist and we would be making the impossible compromise towards DRM. How nice! |
| grouch Aug 04, 2006 7:35 AM EDT |
I don't see how his comments against GNOME show anything except that he doesn't like the way GNOME is designed. |
| tuxchick2 Aug 04, 2006 7:37 AM EDT |
But Gnome does suck, and their whole design philosophy is nuts. If you want a good strong example of where Linus has been badly wrong before, try BitKeeper, which I think is far less debatable than the merits of Gnome. Which has nothing to do with DRM anyway- you're right, there is no compromise. What I don't understand is this "Tivo-ization" issue- what Grouch describes is a GPL violation already, isn't it? It's clear that locked hardware is the next big battleground, and I think RMS and the FSF are seeing the issues more clearly than most folks. As much I want to have my usual infallible, erudite opinion on GPL3, I can't because I don't understand it. :( |
| Libervis Aug 04, 2006 7:51 AM EDT |
grouch: Quoting:I don't see how his comments against GNOME show anything except that he doesn't like the way GNOME is designed. Well calling GNOME a DE for idiots which only idiots will use seems like an excercise of intolerance towards the way GNOME is designed, not just dislike. A truly open minded person would at least show some respect towards the GNOME design philosophy, despite disagreement. tuxchick2: Quoting:What I don't understand is this "Tivo-ization" issue- what Grouch describes is a GPL violation already, isn't it? As far as I understand, it's not a violation. That's actually the biggest problem of Tivoization; it gets around GPL requirements without actually violating it and hence no legal action can be taken against it. If it were GPLv3 though legal action would be possible. |
| sbergman27 Aug 04, 2006 7:58 AM EDT |
> If you want a good strong example of where Linus has been badly wrong before, try BitKeeper Tuxchick, You are so right on that one. As much respect as I have for him, he was so very, very, wrong. Oh, he was right. In a way. But he so misjudged Bitkeeper as a "solution" for his dev team. It's all about knowing your target audience. Feck that up, and you'd better have a dommed good reputation to fall back upon. |
| dinotrac Aug 04, 2006 8:14 AM EDT |
TC and Steve - I don't know that Linus was wrong about Bitkeeper...if you keep the total context in mind. Remember... 1. The initial decision was to go from no source code control to source code control. Linus had been managing on a patch by e-mail mode. In his view, Bitkeeper made him far more productive than alternative solutions. Neither you nor I can argue with him on that because we have no way to know. We are not he and, likely as not, our minds do not work the same way. 2. Bitkeeper (with heavy modes from Linus) seems to have delivered the goods -- more control and more productivity. 3. You can look at Bitkeeper as an unintended test drive - When the Bitkeeper thing erupted, Linus had a reasonable basis for the creation of git. Finally, let us not forget that Linus did indeed change course when free BitKeeper went poof and started up a free solution he could live with. |
| jimf Aug 04, 2006 8:28 AM EDT |
Remember that BitKeeper was a viable solution for quite a while. And even though it caused a certain amount of controversy, the changeover to git caused minimal interruption in the development. Considering that git didn't exist as a solution to begin with, I can't see that Linus made any big mistake in choosing BitKeeper. |
| dinotrac Aug 04, 2006 8:36 AM EDT |
jimf - And, let us not forget, that he tried various free alternatives first. In a way, he had his Stallman moment: He was willing to use version control, but was not willing to sacrifice his productivity. He also had his un-Stallman moment: When he saw that his preferred path was no longer viable, he changed course and came up with something better. |
| sbergman27 Aug 04, 2006 8:42 AM EDT |
He was mistaken. It was noted, by many, from the beginning. No one could have missed that. Linus refused to use anthing other than his shell scripts. He hated CVS. For good reasons, I suppose. The volcano errupted at the start of that fiasco. He decided to move from his shell scripts... to the wonderous Bitkeeper, because Linux developers were fed up with his failure to respond to their patch submissions. You could almost see the dazzle in his eyes when he discovered the Bitkeeper "solution". And then he ignored his own employees^Wcontributors for years. Now, I'm not sure that the world is ready for a GPLv3 offensive. Actually, I think it probably is ready, and not in a good way for us. But I do know that Linus goofed the bitkeeper thing and I don't think it makes sense to defend him on that one. I do think he's likely right on this one, though. Sometimes you simply have to recognize when you've done good and hold on that. RMS did good with GPLv2. It's worked and worked well. Not just worked at protecting code, but at getting itself propogated. If it works... don't fix it. |
| dinotrac Aug 04, 2006 8:53 AM EDT |
Steve - It was a mistake only if a better solution existed at the time. You will note that Linus did not select a different version control system when he backed away from Bitkeeper. He created one that did what he wanted. In the end, no harm, no foul, and a new tool. |
| tuxchick2 Aug 04, 2006 8:59 AM EDT |
Libervis, I wouldn't criticize people who like and use Gnome. Just Gnome itself, if that makes any difference. :) People like what they like. It's a low blow to call Gnome users idiots. I followed the BitKeeper saga rather closely, as I had a couple of friends who were doing kernel work at the time. They told me that Linus and Larry McVoy were friends, and in essence Linus gave McVoy the talent and energy of the kernel dev team to test and improve his closed, commercial product. It was pretty raw at the time, not a polished, efficient application. McVoy continually changed the terms of the license in response to what he felt were threats to his business model, to the point that he tried to forbid using BitKeeper concepts and ideas. You may recall how McVoy pitched a fit when Andrew Tridgell wrote a Free client to BitKeeper, and Linus flamed Tridge all over the place. The Register, as usual, has the liveliest writeup: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/04/14/torvalds_attacks_tri... And the kernel list archives are quite educational, as all of this happened in the open and was discussed extensively. Most kernel devs didn't want to touch it in the first place, even with a free-beer license, because it was not Free software, and they felt that suitable Free alternatives existed. Just think if all the time and talent that went into improving and perfecting BitKeeper, a closed proprietary product, had gone into a Free application instead. Moral: even great people like Linus can be wrong once in awhile, you can't just take everything on faith. |
| dinotrac Aug 04, 2006 9:04 AM EDT |
tc: >Moral: even great people like Linus can be wrong once in awhile, you can't just take everything on faith. Yes, and some great people eventually recognize their mistakes and make things right again. |
| tuxchick2 Aug 04, 2006 9:07 AM EDT |
So the path to greatness is paved with mistakes? boy howdy, then I am the greatest. |
| sbergman27 Aug 04, 2006 9:13 AM EDT |
Tuxchick, I am *SICK AND TIRED* of you taking all the glory. I'll have you know that I've made *tons* more mistakes than you've ever thought of making. And I have links. ;-) |
| dinotrac Aug 04, 2006 9:13 AM EDT |
>So the path to greatness is paved with mistakes? Absolutely it is. Witness Lincoln's parade of generals before he arrived at US Grant. Witness the earliest days of the US Space program. Witness Thomas Edison and the Light Bulb. My pet theory is that no human being is as smart as he or she believes. The path to greatness is paved with mistakes because we poor people make them constantly. Not making mistakes is a sure sign of not doing anything. Greatness requires moving past your mistakes, learning from them, and doing better. IMHO, of course. |
| Libervis Aug 04, 2006 9:19 AM EDT |
sbergman27:
Quoting: If it works... don't fix it. DRM breaks it, as Tivo example shows. It needs fixing. Software patents break it, and that too needs fixing. The goal of GPL is to preserve freedom, DRM and software patents threaten that in our time making even GPL too weak to protect this freedom. If it can get involve and respond to that threat, and apparently it can according to the copyright law, then by all means it should do so. |
| tuxchick2 Aug 04, 2006 9:19 AM EDT |
sbergman27, I'm more humble than you, too. My humility is legendary. People bow before it many times a day. |
| dinotrac Aug 04, 2006 9:23 AM EDT |
tc - Hmmmph. I am famous for my humility. I am in negotiations now with some very big movers and shakers --- VERY BIG -- to host my own hit television series, "The Humble Hour." I gotta tell ya, considering how incredible I really am, I'd be awfully hard to live with if I weren't so humble. But I am. Moreso than you. So there. In all humility. |
| NoDough Aug 04, 2006 10:22 AM EDT |
I believe this song [url=http://www.asklyrics.com/display/Mac_Davis/Oh_Lord_It`s_Hard_To_Be_Humble_Lyrics/73493.htm]http://www.asklyrics.com/display/Mac_Davis/Oh_Lord_It`s_Hard...[/url] was written for (by?) you folks. |
| jdixon Aug 04, 2006 10:37 AM EDT |
> So the path to greatness is paved with mistakes? boy howdy, then I am the greatest. > I gotta tell ya, considering how incredible I really am, I'd be awfully hard to live with if I weren't so humble. We'll just have to start calling you Tuxchick Ali and Dinotrac Davis I guess. |
| jdixon Aug 04, 2006 10:40 AM EDT |
> I believe this song [HYPERLINK@www.asklyrics.com]
was written for (by?) you folks. The greatest part of that song is that, as far as I've even been able to find out, Mac Davis really is a humble, down to earth, person. Given that, the juxtaposition of him singing the song is what really makes it funny. |
| sbergman27 Aug 04, 2006 10:47 AM EDT |
> Well calling GNOME a DE for idiots which only idiots will use seems like an excercise of intolerance towards the way GNOME is designed, not just dislike. A truly open minded person would at least show some respect towards the GNOME design philosophy, despite disagreement. I'm a Gnome fan. I'll admit that RMS is a more skillful troll than Linus. Richard is the best there is. You'd almost not recognize him as one at all. Very slick. Linus does it, but he always seems a bit clumsy when he does. |
| tuxchick2 Aug 04, 2006 11:00 AM EDT |
NoDough, at last, you have discovered an anthem suitable for the Tuxchick. She is grateful. |
| jimf Aug 04, 2006 12:54 PM EDT |
> Given that, the juxtaposition of him singing the song is what really makes it funny. Yes jdixon, I've seen him sing it and it's hilarious. Can't you just see tuxchick, dino, and Steve singing this as a trio... |
| dek Aug 04, 2006 2:00 PM EDT |
> Can't you just see tuxchick, dino, and Steve singing this as a trio... Talent show, anybody? At the next LinuxWorld, perhaps? Don K. |
| tuxchick2 Aug 04, 2006 2:01 PM EDT |
I only do solos. |
| Libervis Aug 04, 2006 2:32 PM EDT |
sbergman27:Quoting:I'm a Gnome fan. I'll admit that RMS is a more skillful troll than Linus. Richard is the best there is. You'd almost not recognize him as one at all. Very slick. I'll assume that was supposed to be humorous. |
| sbergman27 Aug 04, 2006 4:38 PM EDT |
> I'll assume that was supposed to be humorous. Actually. I'm kinda serious on that one. He's very, very, very good, though. Good enough that he might not even realize he's trolling. And good enough that his trolling actually *does* some good. But to deny that it is, in the end, self-serving, is to miss the obvious. |
| Libervis Aug 04, 2006 5:27 PM EDT |
So you're still calling RMS a troll? I could actually apply what you just said to yourself right now, but then again I'm not an expert on trollogy as you apparently are. :P |
| jimf Aug 04, 2006 5:50 PM EDT |
Tuxchick said:
> I wouldn't criticize people who like and use Gnome. Just Gnome itself, if that makes any difference. :) That makes a lot of sense Tuxchick. People that I respect use gnome. No matter how 'misguided' I think they are, if it works for them, who am I to criticize their choice. Libervis said: > A truly open minded person would at least show some respect towards the GNOME design philosophy Now that one is just FUD.. First, the 'philosophy' phrasing is misleading in this context. (philosophy being defined as: doctrine: a belief or system of beliefs) 'development approach' would probably be more accurate. That established, a truly open minded person would most likely examine the gnome design development approach, but, if the development approach is flawed, then it deserves nothing like respect. People deserve respect, a design approach only deserves analysis. Let's not start mixing FOSS and GPL philosophy with a gnome development approach. |
| sbergman27 Aug 04, 2006 5:58 PM EDT |
> I could actually apply what you just said to yourself right now, And I wouldn't deny it. It takes one to know one, hey? :-) It's when we are most sure of ourselves that we are the most vulnerable to the trollish side of our personalities. I almost hate to bring this up. Well, I do hate to bring this up. But I think that was what Dean was getting at by using the word "dishonest" the other day. Self deception is something we do. Every day. Especially with regards to things about which we care, deeply. It's nothing to be ashamed of. But it is something to watch out for. If anyone thinks I'm talking at them... I'm not. Remember, I'm an admitted troll. ;-) |
| Libervis Aug 04, 2006 6:27 PM EDT |
Jimf, OK, I might have put it better. The term "design philosophy" isn't invented by me, but you'd be right to say that doesn't mean I have to propagate it. But even if you think a development approach is completely flawed, that doesn't call for comments that Linus posted, which pretty much do end up disrespecting developers who employ this approach and its users. And GNOME indeed does have alot of developers and users. Shouldn't at least that fact alone be enough for one to be open towards a possibility that there is something of benefit in it? Or do you really limit yourself to calling them all blind idiots? That's what I'm talking about when speaking of an open mind. sbergman27, though, seems to try to explain Linus's comment as a failure to the trollish side of his personality, which we all apparently have. ;) Well I can see that point, but I'll just say that sometimes these failures may reflect a general state of mind of the person in question, especially if these "failures" tend to happen too often. I guess that's when we start calling people trolls, when their trollish side takes over. Right Steve? :) |
| jdixon Aug 04, 2006 6:29 PM EDT |
> But I think that was what Dean was getting at by using the word "dishonest" the other day. I'd say that's largely correct. That's pretty much what I tried to say to grouch. Though in Dean's case I think it was intended more as a matter of not having thought the conflicts through than self deception. We often hold conflicting viewpoints simply because we haven't thought our postions through to their logical conclusions. |
| Libervis Aug 04, 2006 6:32 PM EDT |
> We often hold conflicting viewpoints simply because we haven't thought our postions through to their logical conclusions. That simply calls for frequent questioning of our positions, which is actually one of the signs of an open mind. |
| sbergman27 Aug 04, 2006 6:43 PM EDT |
> I guess that's when we start calling people trolls, when their trollish side takes over. Right Steve? :) Yep. I have no problem with being called trollish today. I *have* been trollish today. I'm glad I have friends that can deal with it. At least, I hope I do. Maybe I don't after today. But maybe I've done some good. :-) Love, Steve |
| jimf Aug 04, 2006 6:45 PM EDT |
> do you really limit yourself to calling them all blind idiots? Same as in this forum. It's simple. Deal with the ideas but don't insult the people. Ideas, design, even philosophies; any of them are up for discussion. Personal attacks or slurs are offensive and counter productive... Just rude really. |
| dinotrac Aug 04, 2006 6:47 PM EDT |
Libervis - >But even if you think a development approach is completely flawed, that doesn't call for comments that Linus posted As should be obvious by now, I have TONS of respect for Linus. At the same time, I recognize that there is certain element of good Linus/bad Linus, or, if you prefer, Mr. Penguin and Dr. Vulture. He just shouldn't say some of the things that he does, but, well, he does. |
| jdixon Aug 04, 2006 7:00 PM EDT |
> That simply calls for frequent questioning of our positions, which is actually one of the signs of an open mind. That's true, but very few people actually seem to take the time to do so. :( One of the reasons I like this site is that most of the people do. |
| Libervis Aug 04, 2006 7:01 PM EDT |
sbergman27:Quoting:I'm glad I have friends that can deal with it. At least, I hope I do. Maybe I don't after today. Nah, you do. :) jimf: Quoting:Deal with the ideas but don't insult the people. Ideas, design, even philosophies; any of them are up for discussion. Personal attacks or slurs are offensive and counter productive... Just rude really. Completely agreed. That's the crux of it. About Linus, there is still a question of why does he so adamantly oppose DRM restrictions in GPLv3 and could it be that at least a good part of the reason for this is merely his animosity towards FSF, kind of a grudge against them? EDIT: To clarify I bit. It seems to me as if Linus is very easily upset by almost anything FSF says and does as if there is more than a simple disagreement between him and FSF, almost as if it's personal. |
| dinotrac Aug 04, 2006 7:09 PM EDT |
>EDIT: To clarify I bit. It seems to me as if Linus is very easily upset by almost anything FSF says and does as if there is more than a simple disagreement between him and FSF, almost as if it's personal. Don't know, but, given Stallman's penchant for trying to reduce Linus's standing to something better than, but not by much, a summer intern, I could understand a certain coolness. |
| jdixon Aug 04, 2006 7:10 PM EDT |
> About Linus, there is still a question of why does he so adamantly oppose DRM restrictions in GPLv3 As far as I can tell, Linus thinks people should be free to implement DRM if they want to. He probably thinks it's stupid to do so, but doesn't consider it any of his business to tell others what to do with their code or hardware. The only problem with this is that once I buy the product, it's MY code or hardware, not the manufacturer's, and I may not want DRM. Linus figures I just won't buy the DRM'ed products, but he overlooks the fact that there may not be any other option (that's currently the case with DVD players, there are no DRM free options). Stallman is trying to force the matter before it gets to that point. |
| sbergman27 Aug 04, 2006 7:25 PM EDT |
Steve the troll said:Quoting:I'm glad I have friends that can deal with it. At least, I hope I do. Maybe I don't after today. And Libervis said: Quoting:Nah, you do. :) That means a lot to me. No matter what different positions we find ourselves in with respect to supporting Free Software: We are a community. Then again, we wouldn't be here if we didn't realize that. Perhaps I worry about nothing? |
| jimf Aug 04, 2006 7:29 PM EDT |
> almost as if it's personal. And who can say there isn't a bit of that. All the more reason to concentrate on the facts as presented and not dwell on personalities. |
| Libervis Aug 04, 2006 8:08 PM EDT |
sbergman27 > Perhaps I worry about nothing? Worry about that other thread about driver support in Windows. Grouch is killing you. ;) Lot's of posts to deal with. Jimf, you're right. The facts as I see it, and most seem to agree, is that DRM is plain bad and Linus needs to cool off regarding GPLv3 addressing it. Maybe he's just too busy with coding to actually realize the real danger of DRM, but as Linus outspoken that he is, he can't not to speak about it anyway. |
| dcparris Aug 04, 2006 8:29 PM EDT |
> He just shouldn't say some of the things that he does, but, well, he does. So do I, Dino. So do I. In fact, that's what started this thread. Guess we all do. I'm not particularly a fan of GNOME, btw, but I'm using Ubuntu because I just don't care that much for KDE either, even though it is more customizable. Frankly, I'm considering migrating from GNOME to EMACS, since the latter is more customizable. Or is that GNU/Linux to GNU/EMACS? Whichever. ;-) |
| sbergman27 Aug 04, 2006 8:30 PM EDT |
> Worry about that other thread about driver support in Windows. Grouch is killing you. ;) I guess it depends upon your point of view. |
| dcparris Aug 04, 2006 8:43 PM EDT |
> To clarify I bit. It seems to me as if Linus is very easily upset by almost anything FSF says and does as if there is more than a simple disagreement between him and FSF, almost as if it's personal. Well, I've thought that about ESR's attitude toward Stallman. I hold the opinion - stand back everyone, the great and mighty humble master of the universe is about to speak - that Raymond, Torvalds and Co. simply prefer to focus on the, um, more 'practical' aspect and shove the philosophical aspect to the side. You see, if we ignore the philosophical aspect, then it becomes easier to focus on the technology. Indeed, I know many people who have said, "if you worry about the philosophy, you'll miss out on the technology." The other side of the coin is that if you don't worry about the philosophy you'll undermine the freedom that affords the reciprocity and undergirds the open development approach. Ironically, if everyone (or at least far more people) bought into the libre philosophy, we could have our technological cake and eat it too. |
| jimf Aug 04, 2006 9:10 PM EDT |
> stand back everyone, the great and mighty humble master of the universe is about to speak Re: Can't you just see tuxchick, dino, and Steve singing this as a trio... Oh, no, trust a preacher to turn it into a choirs :D --- That aside, you are correct. Technology without philosophy is a shallow thing indeed. But, the quandary is which to use when. They sometimes don't play well together. |
| dcparris Aug 04, 2006 10:48 PM EDT |
> Oh, no, trust a preacher to turn it into a choirs :D You really don't want me to sing. Besides, I would hate to single-handedly bring down the Internet with one of my C-flaaaats. But if you insist... (mandatory pause to allow others to interrupt quickly) >That aside, you are correct. Technology without philosophy is a shallow thing indeed. But, the quandary is which to use when. They sometimes don't play well together. Considering that philosophy's purpose is to guide our behavior, I would suggest that philosophy should influence technology. However, some seem to think that technology should be developed without any serious consideration for philosophy, other than, if it feels good, do it. If you hear the mantra I mentioned above, it fits with that thinking. By allowing technology to be directed by the 'feel-good' philosophy, we will 'feel' freer initially. We might also make more money than ever. But it won't be long until we are more restricted than ever. That's because we will all be free to restrict each other. It won't be long until creative ability depends entirely on our financial status, which in turn, depends on our creative ability. We'll be stuck. That's exactly what's happening in the movie/music industry. By allowing the libre philosophy to guide the development of technology, we restrict ourselves in certain ways in order to gain greater long-term benefits. A few will get rich, but more will manage to make a reasonable living. We'll also be more truly free. Remember, the train is most free when it is running as it was designed to - confined to the tracks. |
| jimf Aug 04, 2006 11:56 PM EDT |
> You really don't want me to sing. well, maybe you can just conduct the rest of them... It is a pretty ragged bunch :D On a more serious note, I despair that the Corporate world will ever be motivated by anything except the 'feel-good' philosophy. Any time you have a situation where potential 'billions' of dollars are at stake, the degree of ethical erosion in the corporate world seems to increase. Doesn't matter how good the intentions were when they started out, it goes for the immediate $$$$$$. In any case, I know the real world struggle to reform the situation is only just beginning. Getting corporations to realize the long term benefits, and actually do something based on libre philosophy to guide the development of technology is a very up hill battle. Or, maybe this is just one of those depressing days where I suspect that the whole darn corporate world is just evil. |
| dcparris Aug 05, 2006 1:42 AM EDT |
> Or, maybe this is just one of those depressing days where I suspect that the whole darn corporate world is just evil. I would say there is some good in it all. But, it's kind of like a North Carolina hog farm, you might want to put on a gas mask, cause you'll probably have to dig through a lot of pig stuff to find it. Pig stuff, for those who may not know, contains methane, and people have been known to be overcome by it. ;-) |
| dinotrac Aug 05, 2006 3:50 AM EDT |
>Or, maybe this is just one of those depressing days where I suspect that the whole darn corporate world is just evil. Amoral, I think is a better term. Corporations are not designed as moral beings. Fortunately, and sometimes not, they are made up of people, many of whom do wonderful things. |
| sbergman27 Aug 05, 2006 5:06 AM EDT |
> well, maybe you can just conduct the rest of them... It is a pretty ragged bunch :D It's a pretty ragged song. ;-) |
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!