Stop fighting? Tell that to Microsoft
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| golem Oct 07, 2009 10:06 PM EDT |
We should stop fighting Microsoft when, and only when, Microsoft stops trying to destroy us. |
| jezuch Oct 08, 2009 2:15 AM EDT |
Well, the "article" (blog, really) is silly, but it has a point that this whole browser monopoly hoopla is silly. |
| Teron Oct 08, 2009 4:53 AM EDT |
Yeah. It's sad how it's always about some minor detail like what browser is included, but nothing is ever done to the forced Windows sales that are the root cause of all the nasty anticompetition lawsuits. Anything else is just treating the symptoms without curing the disease. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 08, 2009 9:08 AM EDT |
I couldn't agree more. I've been disgusted that people focus so much on a triviality. The usual "accusation" against MS has been that they make it so their own software works better than anyone else's on Windows. Well no poop, Windows is _their_ product. So what? That's like Microsoft objecting to Linux APIs not allowing Windows programs to run natively. Those sole-source OEM contracts, even though I don't like them, those are the masterstrokes of genius that have made Microsoft so very much money. > Anything else is just treating the symptoms without curing the disease. So long as Microsoft tries to grasp at straws, they will eventually fail. They must, because Microsoft has given up on innovation and has been trying to use "lock in" and the upgrade-treadmill to ensure their profit margins. People don't like to be used, and as each person/firm reaches its limit, Microsoft loses another customer _permanently_. |
| bigg Oct 08, 2009 9:46 AM EDT |
For all the griping about the "focus on browsers" I wish someone would give an explanation as to why it would be a good thing to have to use Windows to access the internet? Not only that, but you would have to use Internet Explorer. What a weird gripe. {I know the answer if you assume perfect competition and perfect information.} |
| golem Oct 08, 2009 10:27 AM EDT |
It may look silly now, but Internet Explorer was one prong of a three-pronged campaign (the other two being Front Page and IIS) which, had it succeeded, would have given Microsoft total control of the Web. It would have become practically impossible to create, serve or view content on the Web without using Microsoft software. In time, that would have meant that no content not approved by Microsoft could have been posted or viewed on the Web. That failed to come true by the narrowest of margins, primarily because Firefox appeared just in time. |
| softwarejanitor Oct 08, 2009 11:54 AM EDT |
@golem And because Apache was already fairly heavily entrenched by the time Microsoft made IIS anything approaching a viable contender. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 08, 2009 12:35 PM EDT |
At that same time, several IIS-only viruses, such as Code-Red, made any thinking admin realize that IIS was just not something that could face the outside world. Lots of IIS to Apache migrations in late 2000. |
| bigg Oct 08, 2009 1:14 PM EDT |
> would have given Microsoft total control of the Web Yes, web pages would have to be written in MSML, which would be a proprietary, patented binary format that could only be legally written by MS programs and be legally read by Internet Explorer. Given that, along with the fact that nearly everyone would be guaranteed to have IE already installed, very few sites would work with other browsers. |
| softwarejanitor Oct 08, 2009 4:32 PM EDT |
@bigg We shouldn't ever think that MS won't try it again... They may try to leverage .NET and Silverlight into yet another run at a proprietarized www if they can fool enough people into adopting them and then use patent lawsuits and other dirty Embrace, Extend and Extinguish tricks of theirs to lock everyone else out. Microsoft may have lost a few battles so far, but they are nothing if not tenacious. They obviously haven't given up. They will continue to fall back, lick their wounds and be back with a whole new set of tactics. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 09, 2009 12:48 PM EDT |
> They will continue to fall back, lick their wounds and be back with a whole new set of tactics. Those who wish power over others never rest. |
| azerthoth Oct 09, 2009 2:20 PM EDT |
Is this a case of who should stop attacking first? Might I suggest that the one who initiated the first attack be the first also to stop. I wonder who that would be? (rhetorical question, I know who it was) |
| softwarejanitor Oct 09, 2009 5:56 PM EDT |
@azerthoth Don't be silly. The first one to stop will be the first one to stop drawing breath. |
| azerthoth Oct 09, 2009 6:07 PM EDT |
Got it, asking MS to stop is OK, asking to super glue RMS's lips together is not. Just as long as I understand which way the pinball table is tilted. |
| tracyanne Oct 09, 2009 6:27 PM EDT |
This was written in 2003, but I think it's still worth a read. http://aaxnet.com/editor/edit029.htmlQuoting:A Microsoft partner is a victim they haven't gotten to yet |
| gus3 Oct 09, 2009 6:30 PM EDT |
How about gluing Steve Ballmer's hands to a chair? Is that too much to ask? |
| softwarejanitor Oct 09, 2009 8:01 PM EDT |
@azerthoth Really? Comparing anything that RMS has done (annoying at worst) to what Microsoft has done (often unethical if not outright illegal) is kind of silly. |
| azerthoth Oct 09, 2009 8:17 PM EDT |
not really they both say the same thing. |
| tracyanne Oct 09, 2009 9:36 PM EDT |
@azerthoth... really? |
| gus3 Oct 09, 2009 9:39 PM EDT |
"They both say the same thing." True, as far as it goes. The invective they (RMS and Ballmer) hurl at each other is over-the-top. But actions speak louder than words. |
| azerthoth Oct 09, 2009 10:00 PM EDT |
When you cut through the crud, they both say "Your only supposed to do it our way" both are wrong. |
| gus3 Oct 09, 2009 10:30 PM EDT |
Or, to paraphrase Donkey's take on Shrek's "ogres are like onions" comment: Once you peel away the layers, there's nothing left. |
| tracyanne Oct 10, 2009 12:38 AM EDT |
And here was me thinking Microsoft was in it for the money.... yours, while Stallman has this whacky idea that if software is Free then you are Free to use it as you wish, so long as you don't try to stop other people from using it as they wish. i wish every one else's my way or the highway was as restrictive as that. |
| azerthoth Oct 10, 2009 12:50 AM EDT |
still a my way or the highway, just because you like it better than the other doesnt make it any different. |
| tracyanne Oct 10, 2009 12:56 AM EDT |
and your replacement would be? |
| azerthoth Oct 10, 2009 1:03 AM EDT |
co-existance. it need not be a fight to the death. Granted MS seems more open to the idea than RMS, and we know already where MS stands on open collaboration even when forced to by the courts. |
| gus3 Oct 10, 2009 1:08 AM EDT |
And this is why, even with the flame-wars that erupt on occasion, I enjoy visiting LXer. |
| tracyanne Oct 10, 2009 1:55 AM EDT |
Quoting:co-existance. it need not be a fight to the death. Granted MS seems more open to the idea than RMS And what precisely is it that leads you to the conclusion that Microsoft is actually interested in coexistance? |
| Sander_Marechal Oct 10, 2009 6:25 AM EDT |
MS wants just enough coexistance to get out of anti-trust issues. Why do you think Apple wasn't buried two decades ago? |
| azerthoth Oct 10, 2009 7:57 AM EDT |
Read what I said a little more carefully, your question was answered before you asked it TA. |
| tracyanne Oct 10, 2009 8:39 AM EDT |
Quoting:and we know already where MS stands on open collaboration even when forced to by the courts. What it looks to me like you are saying is that Microsoft would be all for co existence and open collaboration, and would do it even if the courts weren't pushing them to be more open. Is that correct? If my understanding is correct, you haven't actually answered my question, which was "what precisely is it that leads you to the conclusion that Microsoft is actually interested in coexistence?" The quote above and another part of your statement from which I quoted " Granted MS seems more open to the idea than RMS" leads me to believe that you have some information or knowledge that leads to a conclusion that Microsoft is actually interested in Co-existence and open co-operation. Regardless, I still don't see anything that answers my question. |
| azerthoth Oct 10, 2009 9:37 AM EDT |
Do you work hard at being obtuse or is it natural? The only interaction and coexistence MS has ever accepted has been court ordered (said in the post your questioning). Which makes them still more open to the idea to coexistance than RMS. As I also said they are both wrong. happy now? road map, both hands, found the missing part? |
| mortenalver Oct 10, 2009 1:02 PM EDT |
I also can't quite agree with RMS' opinion that proprietary software is immoral and unacceptable. However, his philosophy and actions has had tremendous positive effects on the software world. I can't say the same about Microsoft. |
| softwarejanitor Oct 10, 2009 2:16 PM EDT |
@mortenalver That's exactly the point. The software world is better for RMS having existed -- despite a few flaws he's been an overwhelmingly positive influence. It would have been better had Microsoft never existed -- they've done more harm to the computing industry than everyone else combined, and given some of the other stinkers out there that is saying a lot. |
| tracyanne Oct 10, 2009 5:13 PM EDT |
Quoting:Do you work hard at being obtuse or is it natural? It was your phrasing that threw me. So I suppose it comes naturally. Given that Microsoft appears to simply want it all, locked down and in their control as well, and the GPL particularly, is designed to ensure that software is not controlled by anyone, it seems to me ludicrous to do or be involved in anything that might enable an organisation like Microsoft to affect what appears to be it's desire (way more anthropomorphising that I would like there). So I can't see how, realistically, it is possible for Stallman to compromise with Microsoft, other than to accept taht they exist, and move on from there. Whereas it seems to me that it would be in Microsoft's best interest, in the long term, to not only encourage openness, such as Stallman proposes, but to active be involved in open sharing, rather than their current attempts of what appears to me to be attempting to create funnels that move Free from the commons to their control, so that Free is Free in name only (it's licensed under the GPL) but isn't really because you have to pay Microsoft their license fee (it runs only on Windows), in order to be able to use it. |
| azerthoth Oct 10, 2009 6:43 PM EDT |
I didnt say he would, I said he was less likely to than MS is even without a court order. which means neither side is happy to coexist willingly. Which is where both MS and (R)MS are wrong. you keep thinking that I have said (R)MS should change, I didn't. I said someone should super glue his mouth shut. |
| tracyanne Oct 10, 2009 9:58 PM EDT |
Quoting:you keep thinking that I have said (R)MS should change, I didn't. No you didn't use those words. Quoting:I said someone should super glue his mouth shut. I'm not sure what this could imply about Richard Stallman, other than that he needs to change. Because if there is something wrong with him making statements about Free Software vs Proprietary, something so wrong that he needs to be shut up, then the only way for him to make that wrongness right, would be for him to change. I don't understand why it is so necessary that two mutually exclusive ways of views of the world need to coexist. Sometimes one view or the other is simply wrong, and from my point of view as a consumer of software, and even as a developer of software, the Freedom view seems so much better than the some one else gets to control what software I use when I use it and how I use it view. It just seems to me that the view that Software should be Free benefits me, and I think you, and even Microsoft, so much more than the view that software is a limited resource that must be controlled by some corporation at the expense of every one else. |
| jdixon Oct 10, 2009 10:45 PM EDT |
> ...then the only way for him to make that wrongness right, would be for him to change. Or to shut up. Which is far simpler and easier. > I don't understand why it is so necessary that two mutually exclusive ways of views of the world need to coexist. Because multiple viewpoints are useful. Our viewpoints blind us to possibilities without our even realizing it. Someone who doesn't share those viewpoints can see those possibilities. I agree with you that FOSS is better. But not everyone is like us, and that's a good thing. As long as both sides are willing to allow for the existence of the other, there's no problem with such a disagreement. The problem with both Microsoft and RMS is that neither allows for the existence of the other. In that regard, they're both wrong. True freedom means that others are free to disagree with you. Microsoft is worse because they're willing to use illegal and unethical method to advance their cause, and as far as I've even been able to tell, RMS isn't. That still doesn't make him right. Remember your discussion with Caitlyn earlier about your (I believe) Mormon coworker? It's like that. One of you must be right and the other wrong, but since there's no way to determine which, there's room for both of your beliefs. As long as their are people and companies like Microsoft, we need people like RMS and organizations like the FSF to counter them. But that doesn't make either right. |
| tracyanne Oct 10, 2009 11:03 PM EDT |
Quoting: Or to shut up. Which is far simpler and easier. That requires that he change. Quoting:Because multiple viewpoints are useful. Our viewpoints blind us to possibilities without our even realizing it. And it is still possible that one veiw point is simply wrong,which, I suppose, sometimes, helps us understand why the view that is right is right. Quoting:Someone who doesn't share those viewpoints can see those possibilities. I agree with you that FOSS is better. But not everyone is like us, and that's a good thing. As long as both sides are willing to allow for the existence of the other, there's no problem with such a disagreement. Well I'm pretty sure that in this case there can actually be no compromise possible. How does one compromise on Freedom without losing those Freedoms? Quoting:Remember your discussion with Caitlyn earlier about your (I believe) Mormon coworker? It's like that. One of you must be right and the other wrong, but since there's no way to determine which, there's room for both of your beliefs. Well actually there is a way to determine to a high degree of certainty that one of us is wrong, by examining those subsets of our beliefs that can be tested against known facts, the one one with a subset of belies that don't correlate against a known facts, is more likely to be wrong in all of their beliefs (given that many of one's beliefs are are often dependent on others) than the one who's beliefs do correlate with known facts. One of us is most definitely, completely and utterly wrong, and it can be demonstrated. In addition, if that demonstration was made, one of us would reassess our beliefs, if shown to be wrong, and the other would not. |
| azerthoth Oct 11, 2009 1:03 AM EDT |
So in pursuit of freedoms that are questionable in their existence to start with (you have to make a few huge assumptions for them to be valid) you would remove a more commonly presupposed freedom, that of individual choice or preference. Loving those logic skills. |
| tracyanne Oct 11, 2009 2:14 AM EDT |
Quoting:you would remove a more commonly presupposed freedom, that of individual choice or preference. In what way is your, or my, or any one else's freedom to choose being removed by Richard Stallman? You still haven't actually answered my original question, either. Quoting:How does one compromise on Freedom without losing those Freedoms? So now you have my original question, and an additional one which your attempt at misdirection raises, to answer. |
| azerthoth Oct 11, 2009 2:28 AM EDT |
Actually in accepting those 'Freedoms' and those freedoms only, then espousing enforcing those 'Freedoms' unilateraly you are destroying other freedoms. Specifically that of choice. Choice of a consumer to operate however they wish (open source may not be their wish), choice of developer who may not want his code freely available to all. You see those "freedoms" (R)MS actually goes on about really do have some serious limitations to choice and freedoms of others. Freedom as you see it may not be as I see it, and its rather hypocritical to remove how I see freedom by forcing your or anyone elses definition upon me. |
| tracyanne Oct 11, 2009 2:39 AM EDT |
Quoting:Actually in accepting those 'Freedoms' and those freedoms only, then espousing enforcing those 'Freedoms' unilateraly you are destroying other freedoms. Specifically that of choice. Choice of a consumer to operate however they wish (open source may not be their wish), choice of developer who may not want his code freely available to all You just repeated yourself. In what way is the the consumer's choice limited? Quoting: (open source may not be their wish Then they are free to choose proprietary software, and the developer is free to choose a Proprietary license, a BSD license or a GPL license, or even one they've made up. Quoting:You see those "freedoms" (R)MS actually goes on about really do have some serious limitations to choice and freedoms of others. You keep saying that Richard Stallmans Freedoms limit choice. But you have still not explained in what way. Simply repeating that they limit choice does not make it so, nor does it explain in what way. And it certainly doesn't answer my question. Quoting:Freedom as you see it may not be as I see it, That may or may not be true. but it still doesn't explain in what way any one's freedom to choose s being limited. I still see nothing that explains in what way anyone's freedom to choose is being limited. All I see are statements that you choice, or some other persons choice is limited, on the grounds that you see Freedom as something different from me. Please explain what Freedom of choice you, me or anyone else, is being denied. Quoting:and its rather hypocritical to remove how I see freedom by forcing your or anyone elses definition upon me. I still don't see what freedom is being taken from you. Or even what definition of freedom is being forced upon you. Simply repeating that a freedom is being denied you, or that your freedom to choose is being denied you doesn't explain in what way it is so. So far, you have still not given me any example of how Freedom of Choice is impacted by Richard Stallmans Freedoms, in addition you have still managed to avoid the following question. Quoting:How does one compromise on Freedom without losing those Freedoms? |
| jdixon Oct 11, 2009 11:05 AM EDT |
> Well actually there is a way to determine to a high degree of certainty that one of us is wrong, by examining those subsets of our beliefs that can be tested against known facts, That's an ongoing process which we've been undertaking for at least several thousand years, so far with no resolution. > Then they are free to choose proprietary software, Not if RMS had his way. He doesn't think proprietary software should exist. I doubt he would use force to remove it, but he doesn't consider it ethical. |
| azerthoth Oct 11, 2009 12:12 PM EDT |
Of course I'm repeating myself, it started with your first question. All subsequent questions that you have asked are specifically asking me to restate something already answered previously. TA either your being intentionally dense and using standard troll tactics (poorly), or you really can not grasp the simple concept that both (R)MS and MS are wrong in their desire to expunge the philosophies of the other from the face of the earth. The question was posed at the begining of the thread as to who should stop attacking first, my answer was the one who started the attacks in the first place, (R)MS. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 11, 2009 1:06 PM EDT |
> Not if RMS had his way. Everthing he says about Free software being better for everyone involved I agree with. It is this with which I cannot agree. To take away the freedom to use a proprietary license seems hypocritical. But then, it's not one of his 4 freedoms either. If there is one thing to truly admire about RMS, it's his consistency. So we have RMS "attacking" proprietary software on principle, ever since there was a Richard Stallman. And Microsoft started their attacks with the infamous "Pay For It" letter by Bill Gates. I would say that the history of this particular fight goes back too far, and is too central to the two party's philosophies to say who started it. Nor do I see any way for either of them to back down without violating their individual principles. |
| tracyanne Oct 11, 2009 3:13 PM EDT |
Quoting:That's an ongoing process which we've been undertaking for at least several thousand years, so far with no resolution. As I said, one of us will reevaluate their beliefs, the other will not. This has been true, for at least several thousand years,, that I'm aware of. Quoting:Not if RMS had his way. He doesn't think proprietary software should exist. I doubt he would use force to remove it, but he doesn't consider it ethical. Then you've already answered the question your first sentence begged. |
| tracyanne Oct 11, 2009 3:25 PM EDT |
Quoting:Of course I'm repeating myself, it started with your first question. It did indeed. Quoting:All subsequent questions that you have asked are specifically asking me to restate something already answered previously. On the contrary, all subsequent questions I've asked have been an attempt to eleicit EXAMPLES of where your freedoms have been denied. Instead of giving me examples you have merely restated that your freedoms are being denied. In addition I have asked you to explain to me "How does one compromise on Freedom without losing those Freedoms?" You have also failed to answer this, in fact you have simply ignored it. Quoting:TA either your being intentionally dense and using standard troll tactics (poorly), or you really can not grasp the simple concept that both (R)MS and MS are wrong in their desire to expunge the philosophies of the other from the face of the earth. When you answer my questions by providing me with examples to my questions, instead of merely restating your assertions, I will probably understand why i am wrong to believe as I do. Until then I must continue to ask you. In what way is your freedom to choose impacted by Richard Stallmans freedoms? "How does one compromise on Freedom without losing those Freedoms? Because you seems to think that I am refering to Richard Stallmans Software Freedoms here, let me clarify. How does any one comprise Freedom without losing that Freedom? and the additional question, now In what way is Richard Stallman wrong to assert that Free Software is ethically more desirable than proprietary Software? |
| azerthoth Oct 11, 2009 3:33 PM EDT |
It has been explained, by myself and jd, your being a troll. |
| tracyanne Oct 11, 2009 3:34 PM EDT |
No you haven't explained. You've asserted. Examples please. But of course, the reason you don't supply examples, the reason you don't answer my questions with anything other than assertions, is because you cannot provide me with examples that support your assertions. So your preference is to continue to assert, and then when your bluff is called, assert that I am trolling. Is that really the best argument you can provide in support of your statements above. Face it, I've called your bluff, found you wanting, demonstrated that your arguments, assertions really, as they are hardly well grounded arguments, are little more than beliefs based on faith, as insubstantial as a wafting cloud of vapour, nothing more than hot air. Time, I think, for you to re-evaluate your beliefs. |
| azerthoth Oct 11, 2009 7:10 PM EDT |
RMS believes proprietary software should be abolished, should his view win then there will be no choice at all for user or developer, how hard is that to drum into your trollish little brain? Your being a troll, you have called nothing and your assertions that you have some how scored a point is fictitious. Its your refusal to follow simple logic that is allowing you to delude yourself. I'm calling you a troll, your being a troll, use your )(#$^&&*@#$% brain for something other than holding your ears apart and use logic. |
| tracyanne Oct 11, 2009 8:16 PM EDT |
Quoting:RMS believes proprietary software should be abolished, should his view win then there will be no choice at all for user or developer, how hard is that to drum into your trollish little brain? Yes that is what it appears he believes. However that is not currently the case, and it is difficult to see how that can ever be the case. I suppose it's possible that sometime in the future Free Software advocates will have sufficient Political influence to call for the banning of Proprietary Software, but I'm pretty sure even then such a thing would be considered unconstitutional. Additionally that has nothing to do with the 4 Freedoms, as enumciated by Richard Stallman. So I will repeat my question. Quoting:In what way is your freedom to choose impacted by Richard Stallmans freedoms? Quoting:Your being a troll, you have called nothing and your assertions that you have some how scored a point is fictitious. Its your refusal to follow simple logic that is allowing you to delude yourself. I never claimed to have scored any points, I merely claimed you have no examples to give me, and that because of that you probably need to re-evaluate your beliefs. Additionally you have merely asserted that I am a troll,you have not demonstrated that your assertion is true. It's actually you inability to provide examples, as requested that demonstrates your inability to follow simple logic. You appear to be basing your beliefs on something that isn't fact. Quoting:I'm calling you a troll, your being a troll, use your )(#$^&&*@#$% brain for something other than holding your ears apart and use logic. Oh dear, such language. Having a bad hair day are we. Now if you give me some examples of how Stallman's freedoms are impacting on your freedom, we can move on a bit. You never know, if you can manage to provide some good examples, you might cause me to reconsider my beliefs. Give me something more than a restating of your beliefs, and conjecture. |
| jdixon Oct 11, 2009 9:19 PM EDT |
> ...one of us will reevaluate their beliefs, the other will not. You have to give someone a valid reason to reevaluate their beliefs, Tracyanne. The fact that you can't do so is no fault of his(?) beliefs. My beliefs are very carefully considered. You couldn't give me any reasons I haven't already considered either. > Then you've already answered the question your first sentence begged. I'll have to take your word for that. > In what way is Richard Stallman wrong to assert that Free Software is ethically more desirable than proprietary Software? He's wrong because he's asserting a claim over software which is not his. The creator of the software is the one who gets to make that call, not Stallman. The software belongs to them, they are the only ones who have the right to make that choice, and their choice may be made on the basis of conditions which Richard Stallman has never even dreamed of, much less considered. > In what way is your freedom to choose impacted by Richard Stallmans freedoms? The specific four freedoms as enumerated by the FSF? It's not. By Richard Stallman's view of ethics and stated desires? He would not allow for the choice of proprietary software. |
| krisum Oct 11, 2009 9:57 PM EDT |
azerthoth, may I try to help you a bit? Tracy, in reply to your question: Quoting: In what way is your, or my, or any one else's freedom to choose being removed by Richard Stallman? Azerthoth has said repeatedly: Quoting: RMS believes proprietary software should be abolished, should his view win then there will be no choice at all for user or developer I do not understand why you are bent upon seeing examples when the answer to your question is quite simple and direct. Of course, RMS has so far not managed to coerce the software world into his view which is besides the point (just as MS has failed to coerce its view). Its his views that are being questioned not his ability to coerce others. |
| tracyanne Oct 11, 2009 10:22 PM EDT |
@JDQuoting:He's wrong because he's asserting a claim over software which is not his. I don't disagree with your statement, in that it is certainly not his right to assert a claim over any software but his own. i don't, however, see where he has asserted a claim over anyone's software. It is his opinion that Proprietary Softweare is unethical, he has, I believe, stated this, and indeed why he believes proprietary software is unethical, many times, and stated clearly, I thought, why he won't use it, and why he believes no one else should. i fail to see where such statements are any attempt to claim what belongs to others. Quoting:The creator of the software is the one who gets to make that call They do indeed. Quoting:The software belongs to them, they are the only ones who have the right to make that choice, and their choice may be made on the basis of conditions which Richard Stallman has never even dreamed of, much less considered. This is most likely true. Quoting:The specific four freedoms as enumerated by the FSF? It's not. By Richard Stallman's view of ethics and stated desires? He would not allow for the choice of proprietary software. I believe that last sentence is conjecture. first, as i've already stated in a previous post. Even if free Software Advocates were to gain suffient Political influence to call for the abolition of Proprietary Software, I'm pretty sure that such a thing would, under US Constitutional law, be cinsidered unconstitutional, second, Richard Stallman claims to be a Libertarian, which I am pretty sure is a political viewpoint that precludes such interference from the State. |
| tracyanne Oct 11, 2009 10:28 PM EDT |
@ KrisumQuoting:"RMS believes proprietary software should be abolished, should his view win then there will be no choice at all for user or developer" And as i have repeately pointed out this is not currently the case, which makes it at best conjecture, NOT a Fact. I have asked repeatedly for examples of where anyone's Freedom has been impacted by richard Stallmans Freedoms Quoting:In what way is your freedom to choose impacted by Richard Stallmans freedoms? And I am continually told that it is his desire is to impact yours, mine and other people's freedoms. That is conjectjure. What I want is examples of where it is currently occuring, that is all I have asked for. is that too much to ask? |
| tracyanne Oct 11, 2009 11:43 PM EDT |
@JDQuoting:You have to give someone a valid reason to reevaluate their beliefs, Tracyanne. This is absolutely true. Quoting:The fact that you can't do so is no fault of his(?) beliefs. Once again true. It is a simple fact of life that some people when presented with facts simply prefer to ignore them. That's a choice a they make, one they are free to make, as far as I'm concerned. I've discovered that many people simply prefer to keep their current beliefs, no matter how out of touch they are with the known facts. Quoting:My beliefs are very carefully considered. I'm quite certain they are. Quoting:You couldn't give me any reasons I haven't already considered either. It certainly sounds that way. The thing is are you prepared to consider new Facts, and re-evaluate your beliefs based on those facts, as they come to light, or are you convinced, due to the careful consideration you've obviously given your beliefs, that new facts have no value where your beliefs are concerned. |
| krisum Oct 12, 2009 4:07 AM EDT |
Quoting: And as i have repeately pointed out this is not currently the case, which makes it at best conjecture, NOT a Fact.Which is where you are not making any sense. What is "not currently the case"? RMS's belief that proprietary software is unethical is a fact and has been consistent at least since the inception of FSF. Quoting: What I want is examples of where it is currently occuring, that is all I have asked for. is that too much to ask?Examples of what occurring? Are you really in want of quotes from RMS where he says that proprietary software is unethical? |
| tracyanne Oct 12, 2009 5:02 AM EDT |
Quoting:Which is where you are not making any sense. What is "not currently the case"? RMS's belief that proprietary software is unethical is a fact and has been consistent at least since the inception of FSF. Yes it is indeed, and it has been so since the inception of the Free Software Foundation, and probably even before. I'm refering to the assertion that he would ban Proprietory Software, an assertion that has been made many times on this thread. I'm further refering to the assertion that "because he would ban Proprietary Software", that he has limited people's software freedoms. Quoting:Examples of what occurring? Examples of people's freedoms being limited, by what has been conjectured, that "because he would ban Proprietary Software" if he had a chance to do so, he IS limiting software freedom. Quoting:Are you really in want of quotes from RMS where he says that proprietary software is unethical? No, I'm quite comfortable with the fact of him having stated, on numerous occassions, that Proprietary Software is unethical. I have read such statements, of his,and heard him state it in interviews. Krisum, please read this thread from the begining. It has been asserted by Az, and i think JD, as well, that Richard Stallman is limiting someone's software Freedoms, yours,. mine, somebodies, because he believes that Proprietary Software is unethical. This assertion, that Richard Stallman IS limiting Software Freedoms, has been made, as i understand it, on the grounds that at some time in the future Richard Stallman may try to ban Prorprietary Software. I have asked on a number of occassions for examples of how he is doing this (Limiting Software Freedom), but have to date received no examples, merely more assertions. |
| tracyanne Oct 12, 2009 5:14 AM EDT |
Quoting:Its his views that are being questioned not his ability to coerce others. No Krisum, it is not his views that are being questioned. It is that he is limiting someone's software freedom that is being alleged. |
| jdixon Oct 12, 2009 7:31 AM EDT |
> I believe that last sentence is conjecture. He's stated his position several times over the years. I merely conclude that he would act on his beliefs if he had the power to do so since, AFAIK, he's never stated that he wouldn't. The vast majority of people do. It's possible that you are correct and he would not act on his beliefs in such a case, but I'm somewhat sceptical myself. Fortunately, we're unlikely to ever find out. > The thing is are you prepared to consider new Facts, I do so all the time. But there are precious few new facts concerning the fundamental nature of reality, and the ones we do find are seldom applicable to my beliefs. |
| tracyanne Oct 12, 2009 7:59 AM EDT |
Quoting:I do so all the time. But there are precious few new facts concerning the fundamental nature of reality Interesting, in that it was pretty much what I expected you to say. Quoting:He's stated his position several times over the years. I merely conclude that he would act on his beliefs if he had the power to do so since, AFAIK, he's never stated that he wouldn't. The vast majority of people do. Well, at the moment, I feel it is rather moot. What I am currently interested in is the following. First: A statement was made, in this thread that He is in fact, right now, limiting people's freedoms, by promoting the 4 freedoms of Free Software. What I want to know is in what way he is limiting people's Freedoms. for example, I don't see my freedoms being limited, by his promotion of the the 4 Freedoms, nor do I see them being limited by his stated belief that Proprietary software is unethical. I am still free to choose Free Software or Proprietary software, and so far as i can tell so are you. Second: I'm interested in understanding how one compromises on Freedom without losing Freedom. |
| mortenalver Oct 12, 2009 9:22 AM EDT |
There's no way ever that RMS is going to be able to outlaw proprietary software, so I don't see the point in discussing that. On the other hand, I think most here would agree that Microsoft poses a real risk of limiting our freedoms (e.g. through proprietary Windows-only technologies that lock out Linux users and that may become popular enough to matter). Saying that RMS is the same as Microsoft, only opposite, is meaningless. |
| jdixon Oct 12, 2009 9:40 AM EDT |
> Interesting, in that it was pretty much what I expected you to say. Well, since it's true, why wouldn't I say it? We're still learning, but it's a slow process. And integrating what we learn is an even slower one. > First: A statement was made... I'm not the one who made that statement and, as noted in my earlier response, I don't agree; so I'll have to let someone else answer. > Second: I'm interested in understanding how one compromises on Freedom without losing Freedom. In theory, by live and let live. By recognizing that people have the right to disagree, even about the nature of Freedom. That's the theory, of course. Theory and practice are only the same in theory, not in practice. :) > Saying that RMS is the same as Microsoft, only opposite, is meaningless. Only if you're incapable of distinguishing between type and degree. |
| mortenalver Oct 12, 2009 11:25 AM EDT |
This isn't an argument, it's just contradiction :) |
| gus3 Oct 12, 2009 11:34 AM EDT |
No, it isn't. :-P |
| jdixon Oct 12, 2009 11:56 AM EDT |
> ...it's just contradiction :) Since when is contradiction a contra-indicator of an argument? :) |
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!