Silly "News"
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| devnet Jul 07, 2006 10:43 AM EDT |
Opera 9 was available for 20 distros a week after it came out. Wow. I sure hope slack packages get this press in the future. This is getting silly. |
| Libervis Jul 07, 2006 10:47 AM EDT |
Meh I don't like this publicity for Opera either. It's a proprietary software package! What's *that* special about it to reject Free Software for it anyway?! Watch out pragmtics flaming me on that one (*ducks and covers*). |
| devnet Jul 07, 2006 10:57 AM EDT |
Nah Livervis, you've a right to your opinion and I respect that stance. It's seldom someone has these values and sticks to them. I, on the other hand, feel that this being available for Ubuntu and being announced (front page of Digg as well) is a bit silly. I don't remember the last time a package for SuSe or Fedora was announced in this fashion. So I find it silly that this is newsworthy...even on a Linux news website. If we're going to announce when packages are available for distros...fine, let's do that. I've got a ton from Debian I'd like to announce. Let me get my press release hat and I'll let the words fly. |
| tuxchick2 Jul 07, 2006 10:57 AM EDT |
Libervis: It's another choice! No matter how sucky, choices are good! It's not aieeee! It's cross-plaform without sucky Java! um Ok, I tried :) |
| Libervis Jul 07, 2006 11:13 AM EDT |
tuxchick2: you forgot one thing: It's not Free as in freedom. ;) |
| wind0wsr3fund Jul 07, 2006 11:17 AM EDT |
Glad to see more and more people are noticing LXer's obvious lack of responsibility as it relates to reporting news. This article should be named "WARNING!: Ubuntu Makes Opera 9 Available For Download" Also, don't bother to respond with your "choice for the sake of choice" copouts. I'm not interested because non-free vs. free isn't a choice at all for those of us that value freedom and are aware enough to realize how imiportant it is to actually *take* a position on the issue. |
| devnet Jul 07, 2006 11:20 AM EDT |
wind0wsr3fund, Don't forget digg.com...they bit the pie before lxer did. In fact, I wonder if lxer bit the pie BECAUSE digg did? Not sure. Oh well, still a bit silly. I'd have said the same thing if we were announcing SuSe packages. I was hard tempted to criticize XGL but of course, this is a new technology so I buttoned the lip. I wouldn't call Opera 9 a new technology though. |
| wind0wsr3fund Jul 07, 2006 11:22 AM EDT |
digg is not a GNU/Linux specific site and I have no expectations of them regarding the responsible reporting of Free Software. |
| devnet Jul 07, 2006 11:28 AM EDT |
of course not...but does digg drive other sites to feel obligated to compete? Perhaps. Is this evident in this instance? Maybe. Of course, this is just my opinion. As I said, it's silly that we're announcing a package available for release that isn't new technology (like XGL). Really irks me...(and of course, it had to be Ubuntu) |
| tuxchick2 Jul 07, 2006 11:28 AM EDT |
wind0wsr3fund, if you ever develop a sense of humor or a sense of perspective, I will personally make sure it hits the front page of LXer. |
| jdixon Jul 07, 2006 11:52 AM EDT |
wind0wsr3fund: > Glad to see more and more people are noticing LXer's obvious lack of responsibility as it relates to reporting news. If they ever ban you for complaining about their news stories covering non-free products, then we'll know you were right. As long as they allow you to point out the non-free nature of such products, they're still doing their job properly. What is and is not news is often a judgement call. By allowing us to comment, LXer allows us to express our viewpoints about those judgements. That's why I read the comments. The viewpoints of you, devnet, Libveris, tuxchick, dinotrac, helios, and a host of less frequent posters are invaluable, even when (in fact especially when) I don't agree with you. |
| Libervis Jul 07, 2006 12:19 PM EDT |
I'd have to agree with jdixon on that. In this particular case it isn't just LXer.com who deliberately or not contributed to more publicity for Opera for which we believe wasn't deserved, but the democratic process of digg.com as well. If anything I think the blame is on individuals who, as it appears, thought this was newsworthy. Apparently there was a big number of those individuals. And it is exactly those individuals who we can try to persuade. Next time they are voting, they may vote differently if we were persuasive enough. So I don't agree that Opera at all deserves so much attention within the Free Software community because it is proprietary software (hence not allowing some of the crucial freedoms I believe we are entitled to as computer users). What can I do about that? Well.. comment on it.. luckily, I have freedom to comment on it and express my concerns and opinions. |
| sbergman27 Jul 07, 2006 12:36 PM EDT |
I'm glad that they are making Opera easier to get. There are plenty of "IE only" sites that don't work with FF, but *do* work with Opera. I use whatever tools I have to use to make Linux and OSS work for my clients. If that means Opera, fine. If that means NVidia's drivers, I install them. If it means XP under VMWare, I cringe inwardly, but do what it takes to make Linux viable for that situation. I give my clients the most useful system possible. If I did not, I would be doing the client *and* OSS a disservice. What I see a lot of people missing is that 10 Linux stations running 95% free software are better for OSS than 1 machine running 100% OSS software and 9 still running XP because Linux couldn't do everything required, or couldn't do it as well as XP. There is a sort of "I care more about freedom than you do because my video drivers don't support 3D" attitude floating around the community that is not doing Linux, or software freedom, any good. |
| Libervis Jul 07, 2006 1:39 PM EDT |
Hey now sbergman27, while I can respect your point of view as such this is just pushing it a bit too far for my taste:Quoting:There is a sort of "I care more about freedom than you do because my video drivers don't support 3D" attitude floating around the community that is not doing Linux, or software freedom, any good. I think that this is a quite unfair thing to say. Just because someone is willing to stick to their principles 100% doesn't make them ideological elitists as you seem to be portraying them. I think you simply have a whole different idea of what software freedom really is, and it apparently differs from our idea. And from my point of view what you are advocating is a path to freedom filled with compromises. You know, I think those compromises could be like holes in bricks. You build a skyscraper with those bricks and what do you get, a nice but unstable building. If you built it with full quality bricks instead the skyscraper would be more stable and long lasting. So while it may be true that building with bricks with holes may be easier because they may be easier/cheaper to get, they wont amount to a stable building. If you attempt to build freedom on compromising it, you're weakening your valuation for it at every step. When you finally reach the supposed goal (say GNU/Linux monopolizes the world, but mostly as a mixture of Free and proprietary software) you're left with so little valuation of freedom in a society that the history is bound to repeat itself until we start facing the same battle once again. Ah well. [/rant] |
| sbergman27 Jul 07, 2006 2:32 PM EDT |
Libervis, Well, let's just say I'm enough of a realist not to have bought RMS's extremist and, frankly, bizarre philosophy hook, line, and sinker. I don't believe that every program in existence has to be FOSS. I don't believe that it is reasonable that every program in existence could or should be FOSS. And I don't believe it is immoral to write closed source software. I do believe that there are real advantages to using FOSS, but they are secular, not Divine. "Software Freedom" is not the be all and end all of my goals. Frankly, I worry that my level of idealism sometimes causes me to do a disservice to my customers by recommending FOSS when I am not sure it's the best solution. I have no desire to go completely over the edge. |
| Libervis Jul 07, 2006 3:16 PM EDT |
Ah again the so called "realism". That "realism" argument seems to becoming a "one shoe fits all" response to anything that resembles even bit of radicalism. Sorry, but I am not buying it anymore. ;) What do you think was that "reality" in the 70s programmers community when essentially no software was proprietary and all software was naturally shared? What was so radical in those days was exactly that surge of proprietary software exploitation where this sharing was obstructed, community as it were destroyed for the love of money. I think Richard Stallman sees a reality here better than most. He dared to challenge the radical (and negative) change that was inhibiting his community and set out to preserve the original spirit of software development and use. So it is proprietary software which is unnatural and radical, not Free Software. Just because it is so widespread in present reality doesn't make it right and certainly doesn't change the fact, a *real* fact (another manifestation of "reality") that proprietary software licensing is a perversion, not more, not less. Thank you |
| wind0wsr3fund Jul 07, 2006 3:31 PM EDT |
"I'm glad that they are making Opera easier to get. " Obviously, because you do not value freedom above your own personal sense of convenience. "There are plenty of "IE only" sites that don't work with FF, but *do* work with Opera." We don't need those websites. In fact, I have absolutely no idea which sites you're referring to (please don't tell me, I don't care.) because I don't run either piece of freedom-restricting software and therefore, have not created a dependancy on them. "I use whatever tools I have to use to make Linux and OSS work for my clients. If that means Opera, fine. If that means NVidia's drivers, I install them. If it means XP under VMWare, I cringe inwardly, but do what it takes to make Linux viable for that situation." Dangerous. In my opinion, you are the worst type of "Open Source" advocate because for all your efforts, you end up convincing people to simply trade one start menu for another. In the end, these people know nothing about freedoms 0-3 and nothing about the Free Software movement. If they did, they wouldn't *want* your XP on vmware hack or your freedom-restricting drivers. "I give my clients the most useful system possible. If I did not, I would be doing the client *and* OSS a disservice." You are doing the free software movement a huge disservice by strengthening people's dependancy on non-free binaries. A proprietary piece of software running on GNU/Linux (a sin in itself) is just as crippling as a piece of proprietary software running on windoze. Personally, if you did any consulting for me, I'd fire you. "What I see a lot of people missing is that 10 Linux stations running 95% free software are better for OSS than 1 machine running 100% OSS software and 9 still running XP because Linux couldn't do everything required, or couldn't do it as well as XP." Is this how you justify your own lack of understanding and conviction regarding free software? Very weak. There is a sort of "I care more about freedom than you do because my video drivers don't support 3D" attitude floating around the community that is not doing Linux, or software freedom, any good. I care about freedom more than you because I do not sell out in the name of convenience. I go out of my way to teach others about these freedoms rather than creating fake allies by touting cheaper, more secure, and more feature rich. When people talk to me about these issues, they leave with a new look on the impact of end user freedom as it relates to accessing, copying, and improving source code. I've said it before and I'll say it again. The greatest threat to the Free Software movement is the open source movement. |
| wind0wsr3fund Jul 07, 2006 3:38 PM EDT |
Libervis, "If you attempt to build freedom on compromising it, you're weakening your valuation for it at every step. When you finally reach the supposed goal (say GNU/Linux monopolizes the world, but mostly as a mixture of Free and proprietary software) you're left with so little valuation of freedom in a society that the history is bound to repeat itself until we start facing the same battle once again." Well said! It's not about what we're accomplishing as much as it is what we're learning. If I woke up tomorrow and found out that the entire world had embraced OOo overnight, I'd raise an eyebrow out of curiosity. If I then learned that the shift happened due to the obvious cost advantage, I'd realize nothing was accomplished and feel saddened by the loss of an opportunity. |
| wind0wsr3fund Jul 07, 2006 3:43 PM EDT |
sbergman27, "Well, let's just say I'm enough of a realist not to have bought RMS's extremist and, frankly, bizarre philosophy hook, line, and sinker. I don't believe that every program in existence has to be FOSS. I don't believe that it is reasonable that every program in existence could or should be FOSS. And I don't believe it is immoral to write closed source software." You have just confirmed my suspicions about your lack of knowledge regarding RMS' convictions. If you had actually performed the due diligence you say you have, you'd know the following: RMS does not address what is write or wrong with regards to "closed source" software. You're probably thinking of Eric Raymond. Assuming you meant "non-free" source, RMS has no problems with people writing it. The crime against humanity takes place when the resulting software is redistributed. |
| Libervis Jul 07, 2006 3:50 PM EDT |
wind0wsr3fund:Quoting: "Assuming you meant "non-free" source, RMS has no problems with people writing it. The crime against humanity takes place when the resulting software is redistributed." Well, before it has been released it really is neither free nor non-free. It's simply kept private, affecting noone by its mere existance in creators privacy. The issue kicks in when it is released under certain terms which now do affect other people. That's where we start classifying it as Free or non-Free. |
| jimf Jul 07, 2006 3:51 PM EDT |
Now wait a minute Daniel! 'unnatural and radical'? perversion? Let's reign in our rhetoric here :). If we start using 'that' language then it's quite clear that what's 'natural' in this world is very predatory indeed. It would, in fact, be an accurate description of what companies like MS are. If you want to say that we are ethically called to support free software, I might agree, but that's actually a developing aspect of one's human awareness. We have to work at it, and, it's definitely not a 'natural' state. |
| tuxtom Jul 07, 2006 3:55 PM EDT |
I have been using Opera as my primary browser for 7 years. I have never had to pay for it and I have never been in violation of its license for using it. Nuff sed. It is FREE in that I am FREE from crappy browsers like IE and Firefox (my opinion from my experience). FREEDOM OF CHOICE. I choose not to need the source code for my web browser, and I appreciate the convenience of being able to install my favorite web browser from my own operating system's repository. FOSS is not my religion, though its teachings are excellent. If it has to be FOSS, then it isn't free. sbergman27: I agree. I HAVE done my customers a great disservice my insisting (if only to myself) that I only implement something open source for them. Really, I should have recommended and implemented packaged solutions on existing MS platforms...it would have been in the better interest of their business. I have grown up a lot over the past couple years in this regard. Going completely over the edge is foolish, if not dangerous. (Note to self: avoid extremes...) |
| Libervis Jul 07, 2006 4:05 PM EDT |
jimf, I wasn't speaking of a natural state of human awareness, but a natural state of software development and use. I'll try to clarify. Why do you think people shared software and source code and built upon the code of one another in the beginning days of software? It was natural to them. It was a logical process. It didn't require whole lot of persuasion and philosophy preaching to convince them that this is good for them. When greedy execs came by and saw a money making opportunity in disrupting this nature, it all changed and that is why I am calling it a "perversion". It was a perversion of a natural software development and use process in a community that naturally formed around that process. I still do believe it is in human nature to share, but it is also in human nature to fall to deception. Propaganda for the case against unauthorized copying of music and software is a good example of attempts to decieve people to believe that the nature of sharing is a sin that results in a crime. |
| Libervis Jul 07, 2006 4:15 PM EDT |
Quoting:(Note to self: avoid extremes...) Enjoy your shallowness tuxtom. I don't think you have any idea of what "extreme" is. But if there is enough people with views as shallow as yours you will soon enough learn what "extreme" is, in a world ruled by DRM, proprietary monopolies - world where you are owned by someone else, not by yourself. So be shallow. Comfort yourself by the mantra of "freedom of choice" while choosing to give up your freedom. |
| sbergman27 Jul 07, 2006 4:25 PM EDT |
> Ah again the so called "realism". That "realism" argument seems to becoming a "one shoe fits all" response to anything that resembles even bit of radicalism. Do you support desktop Linux professionally? Do you actually go out and talk to SMB prospects about their needs and how best to serve them? I do, you see. And I can tell you exactly how much they care about Software Freedom. None. And my going into a speel about it only hurts my credibility. They expect that I, as a consultant, will put together the solution that is best for them. They do not expect to pay me to push my own idealistic or political adgenda on them. In short, they expect the best solution. FOSS has its advantages. Freedom is one. Flexibility is another. Cost is often another. Often, closed source software trumps it with an advantage that cannot be ignored. For example, working with a website needed to conduct their business when no FOSS browser will. Or perhaps the closed source software is software supplied from their vendor that is necessary for their business. My customers receive catalogs from their vendors all the time which are a collection of pdfs or html documents indexed and accessed through, typically, a custom VB application. Or perhaps they have shrink wrapped software that they already like and use. Even if there is a FOSS replacement, it is often not as good. If it is as good, I still have to provide a reason that they should change. If that reason is that their old software won't run under Linux, that's a black mark against Linux. Appeals to the ideals of freedom are totally ineffectual. And the parade of incidental situations that require the use of Windows (or VMWare) and other closed source software is endless. It's a Windows world out there. So, by "realist" I mean that I have to deal with these kinds of realities every working day. I wonder what would happen to my client base and their Linux use if I "stuck to my principles 100%" and refused to support closed source software in any way shape or form? I wonder if FOSS in my neck of the woods would come out better, or worse for it? At home, I use Linux exclusively, and FOSS *almost* exclusively. And I have since 1996. When a site doesn't work with FF, I fire off a polite note to the webmaster (if I have time), curse them privately, and do without. But a completely uncompromising attitude on the FOSS community's part simply creates an impedance mismatch with the rest of the world and hinders the spread of FOSS. |
| helios Jul 07, 2006 4:31 PM EDT |
Your lungs will no longer function without a monthly treatment that directly injects an enzyme into the fabric of the lobes. You must monitor your oxygen intake for 48 hours after each treatment. If there is a specific dynamic in the feedback that crosses a particular line, you must go immediately to the emergency room and receive a corrective dosage by direct injection into the chest cavity. The only software available to you for this home monitoring is not FOSS. What's your call? |
| jimf Jul 07, 2006 4:37 PM EDT |
Daniel, What makes you think that software development and use exist independently of human awareness or action? I believe that your whole thinking of this is muddied since any creation or use of software is in fact done by us humans. Whether we do it in a positive or negative way is completely dependant on our respect for our fellows... or not. That's the ethic of it. Using rhetoric like 'natural' and 'perversion' is irrelevant and counterproductive. Using those terms misses the point and will drive many away. |
| Libervis Jul 07, 2006 4:46 PM EDT |
I see your point sbergman27. I have acknowledged that the present reality in a world is still mostly dominated by proprietary software and people who don't really care about its social implications as long as they get a buck. From what you describe it seems to be a "you or them" kind of situation where it is either you who has to compromise and give in to them, or them who has to pay a bit of attention and keep an open mind about the alternative solution you might be able to forge with only Free Software. You seem to be choosing their way, and giving in to their desires, but I know.. said by someone who doesn't have experience with this job it looks as unfounded criticism. You have to keep your business going and from your point of view my "purism" (as it's sometimes called) applied to your business is destructive. I don't think it has to be that way though. Do you choose to be just one in a crowd of other consultants or would you dare to be a bit more radical and possibly acomplish greater things? Why not take a challenge? Why not try to run a Free Software business and market that fact as your business advantage? I am sure you wouldn't be the first nor last to attempt that. But of course, it is easy for me to say, right? ;) The ultimate point is probably this: yes, reality is as it is, but it is up to us to change it if it isn't the way it should be and if wrong is being done. But we wont change it by conforming and not conforming means being a bit radical, putting on a challenge. But that is how change happens. |
| Libervis Jul 07, 2006 5:01 PM EDT |
Jimf: Maybe you are right. But even then, if the human nature is in some kind of flux, I think my point would generally hold except that I would have to put it differently. Maybe human nature got perverted in itself for the worse of us all. Maybe human self interest part of human nature took more foothold than it should have, leaving many poor humans unaware of the fact that this negative change leaves the society in the worse. But however I put it I believe you got what I was trying to say. The way of developing and using software that Free Software movement advocates didn't even need advocating back in the old days. Something surely did change and I think you could at least agree it didn't change for the better, which is why the attempt to restore the old way is today called a "movement". Helios: Quoting:The only software available to you for this home monitoring is not FOSS. Well, if my life depends on it the choice is obvious. One has to weight things by their importance and prioritize them as such. What is more important, your life or your freedom? If in that particular unlucky case it is proprietary software that can save your life and no equivalent Free Software alternative exists as a viable choice then it is better to save a Free Software advocate's life so he can continue advocating then die with all your convictions, words and vision to the grave. Bear in my however that this is far from being a typical case. This is not a general case and is not to be considered as an excuse for choosing freedom restricting software in cases where you really could have fared well enough with Free Software as well. |
| jimf Jul 07, 2006 5:03 PM EDT |
> The only software available to you for this home monitoring is not FOSS. Lol, I sure hope Libervis' is a great programmer. Really though, we are not saying that there shouldn't be an open software solution... Especially for something as critical as medical software. Hopefully, there will come a time when one will always have the choice. It's just that we're not there yet. |
| sbergman27 Jul 07, 2006 5:17 PM EDT |
Libervis, """From what you describe it seems to be a "you or them" kind of situation where it is either you who has to compromise and give in to them, or them who has to pay a bit of attention and keep an open mind about the alternative solution you might be able to forge with only Free Software.""" Here you are making a false assumption. You are assuming that a 100% FOSS solution would be better. You are also making the assumption that 100% FOSS would do the job, period. Very often, it won't, but a 95% FOSS solution will. """Do you choose to be just one in a crowd of other consultants or would you dare to be a bit more radical and possibly acomplish greater things?""" I'll try not to take too much offense at that. ;-) I've been pushing Linux servers since 1998. (Unix for 10 years before that.) I'm promoting desktop Linux to SMB's in Oklahoma City, OK for crying out loud! Do you know how many times "Linux" is mentioned in our Yellow Pages? Once. It's in our ad. That's it. So I'm not exactly a faceless drone, afraid to break from the crowd and be different. I push as hard as I dare. And I try to stand by my principles in doing what is right for the client rather than just pushing 100% FOSS on them when it won't work as well as another solution. Although I much prefer FOSS, I'm grateful for the existence of tools like Opera that can fill in when FOSS just doesn't have a solution, because it means I can get 95% FOSS in a *lot* more places. Most of my sites have *at least* one show stopper requirement that would make FOSS a no-go without some sort of Opera, Wine, VMWare, binary driver module, etc. magic. |
| jdixon Jul 07, 2006 5:38 PM EDT |
> And I try to stand by my principles in doing what is right for the client rather than just pushing 100% FOSS on them when it won't work as well as another solution. Well, in those cases where you think the client is, hmm, open minded, perhaps, enough to accept the idea, you might mention that there is other solutions that don't work quite as well, but are 100% free. This will probably only be accepted by those who are already using FOSS and have seen it's advantages, but it those cases it's perhaps worth mentioning. Being the front line person, you're probably far better at judging such than I am though. But it's important to remember that people sometimes do make decisions on ethical grounds, when they know that it's possible. If you don't tell them that it's possible, they probably won't know. |
| Libervis Jul 07, 2006 5:42 PM EDT |
sbergman27:Quoting:Here you are making a false assumption. You are assuming that a 100% FOSS solution would be better. You are also making the assumption that 100% FOSS would do the job, period. Very often, it won't, but a 95% FOSS solution will. 5% of a solution that employs only 95% of Free Software doesn't work in one respect: freedom. But yeah, you might be resisting the urge to yell right now "omg not that corny/cheezy word again". But it's not so corny when you translate the lack of it in practical consequences. What if something of those 5% breaks or in any way becomes a problem that requires the access to source code and right to its modification? The client may call you, but you wont be able to do anything before calling the company that provided the product and hoping that they'll take it seriously and be of any help. Freedom is not just a concept for ideologues, philosophers, visionaries, purists and whatever. Having or not having it has its real life consequences as well. Now I'm not sure what exactly is your criteria for rejecting or accepting a Free Software solution for these 5% you are talking about, but I believe that even in cases where you might say it just doesn't work for your solution even though it "nearly works" choosing to reject it is really a bad choice. Besides, if it nearly works everyone may ultimately be better off if you'd contribute to making it work rather than turning back and going with the proprietary solution with its own inherent shortcoming (consequential to the lack of freedom). But well, you'd have to be a 100% FOSS business to work like that, not a 95% one. ;) As it apparently is now, that's not a model of your business. Quoting: I'll try not to take too much offense at that. ;-) I'm glad. I really don't mean to offend. You might look at it as a proposition (at least for consideration) of an alternative model in case you become convinced enough that Free Software is in all cases ethically the right thing and that this ethical aspect is more important than the practical one. |
| sbergman27 Jul 07, 2006 6:00 PM EDT |
jdixon, It's an art. Sometimes there's a FOSS solution that doesn't work quite as well. Often, there is no FOSS solution that would work at all. Sometimes, I can get really clever and inventive and come up with something that will pass. Sometimes I can write and app that will do the job. These things keep me up at night. Every client is different. I have one small business owner who is particularly principled. He'd been using SCO Unix/Xenix since the mid 80's and I'd already moved him to Linux. So, when they decided to get rid of the Wyse 60's, desktop Linux via XDMCP sessions seemed a natural. I proposed some $199 + monitor workstations and everything was cool... until he found out where the workstations were coming from: walmart.com. Oops! He won't touch anything from Walmart. I was able to find an alternate source in the form of Amazon and everyone was happy. Like I say, it's an art. I'm probably not the best artist, but I do my best. |
| grouch Jul 07, 2006 6:35 PM EDT |
Before I finish reading this thread... wind0wsr3fund: >"Glad to see more and more people are noticing LXer's obvious lack of responsibility as it relates to reporting news." I posted this article. In my opinion, it would be wrong to not post it on LXer. Opera is not FOSS, but Ubuntu is. LXer is "about GNU/Linux and free/open source software". Reference: http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/1/ Ubuntu is GNU/Linux and is free software. News that Ubuntu makes it easy to install a non-free browser, and news that the executives behind Opera and Ubuntu "worked closely" to this end, is news that fits what LXer is about. Failing to post such an article just because I personally do not like non-free software would be irresponsible on my part, since the report clearly involves "GNU/Linux and free/open source software". Your comment is illogical and nonsensical. I speak only for myself when I say, you can take your comment and your whining, self-righteous, condescending, continuously-attacking-LXer attitude and shove it where the sun never shines. You want absolute control over what gets reported? Start your own news portal. |
| grouch Jul 07, 2006 6:45 PM EDT |
sbergman27: >"I don't believe that every program in existence has to be FOSS." Strangely, neither does Stallman. Every program released should be free software, however, because otherwise it requires the user to treat her friends, neighbors, family and community unethically in order to assist the programmer in controlling all users of the program. The basic message of closed, secret software that is released under non-free terms is, "Take this bauble on the condition that you horde it and treat everyone you know as thieves." |
| sbergman27 Jul 07, 2006 6:48 PM EDT |
> What if something of those 5% breaks or in any way becomes a problem that requires the access to source code and right to its modification? The client may call you, but you wont be able to do anything before calling the company that provided the product and hoping that they'll take it seriously and be of any help. This is a red herring. In the last 10 years of working with FOSS, I have had perhaps 3 instances in which having the source was relevant. 1. CUPS support for serial printers seriously sucks. I had to go in and fix the serial backend to do multiple copies correctly. 2. Another time, a vendor applied patch messed up the CUPS disable command so that it didn't work. 3. I imagine there was at least one other time that I'm not remembering. As Dean has observed, access to the source is not that much of a factor for most users. > Now I'm not sure what exactly is your criteria for rejecting or accepting a Free Software solution for these 5% you are talking about, but I believe that even in cases where you might say it just doesn't work for your solution even though it "nearly works" choosing to reject it is really a bad choice. I'm not sure we're communicating here. When I say 95% FOSS, I'm talking about, say, Linux running Opera, or IE under crossover office, or a binary driver, as opposed to using pure FOSS. Also, my problem is not so much things that *almost* work with FOSS, but things that don't work at all. Perhaps a concrete example would help: I have a client that does warranty repair work. This is their business. In order to get reimbursed for the cost of parts and labor, they must file a claim to the manufacturer. The claim must be filed using a software package that is provided by one of the industry associations, so almost all of their claims have to be processed with the same software. And guess what it runs under? Windows. It's ugly. It's old. It's closed source. It resists my attempts to run it under Wine or Crossover Office. And it is the only way to file a claim to get paid for what is my client's primary business. They don't have a choice. What do I do? The warranty claims that don't get filed that way, get filed through a web app that makes liberal use of active X. Firefox doesn't get past the main menu, which is an improvement from a year ago when it couldn't even get logged in. So I can tell them they just can't do it, or I can set up Windows under VMWare, or I can try IE under crossover, or I can use... Opera. You'll note that the one option that doesn't appear, because it's not possible, is "Use 100% FOSS". The thing is, I could go on and on with examples, just like these. I have a steady stream of them. I'll probably have more new examples by the end of next week. So, should I be insisting on 100% FOSS or nothing? My feeling is that getting as much FOSS out there as possible is good. I also feel that it is a great luxury to be able to call the shots here on my home network, making decisions based upon what *I* like and feel is right, as opposed to the requirements of my clients which are usually more complicated and involve all sorts of external considerations. |
| jdixon Jul 07, 2006 6:49 PM EDT |
sbergman27: > I'm probably not the best artist, but I do my best. That's all any of us can do. We do appreciate the effort, and I'm sure most of your customers do too. |
| Libervis Jul 07, 2006 6:49 PM EDT |
Quoting:sbergman27: >"I don't believe that every program in existence has to be FOSS." Oh that was well said grouch. We don't need to say "all software must be free as in freedom". We can just say: "treat your neighbour right" for which Free Software is an essential pre-requisite. The point should be quite clear. :) |
| jdixon Jul 07, 2006 6:56 PM EDT |
sbergman27: > ...I can set up Windows under VMWare, or I can try IE under crossover, or I can use... Opera. Opera handles Active X sites? > My feeling is that getting as much FOSS out there as possible is good. I agree. |
| Libervis Jul 07, 2006 7:04 PM EDT |
sbergman27, well, I could push it further and say "build your own Opera or pay someone to do it" for the example you described, but I wont. If there really is absolutely no other alternative, no other choice and not even a viable way for you to build or pay to build an alternative, then I can't blame you. I can appreciate the effort you are putting on promoting Free Software to those businesses and I hope that together we can all change our reality to one that more easily accepts Free Software solutions at all times. That, among other things, means creating more Free Software solutions where they are missing or making existing proprietary software free (In fact I don't see a reason why Opera wouldn't be freed). However I can't agree with the Open Source philosophy that is manifested here and elsewhere all too often, one which favors practicalities and convenience over what's really more important, freedom of computer users which is essentially my freedom as well. I'll never agree to that view. |
| sbergman27 Jul 07, 2006 7:10 PM EDT |
> Opera handles Active X sites? Good point. At one time, I thought it was Active X causing the problem. Later I found that Opera worked. So it must just be a "feature" of IE that is unsupported in FOSS. At any rate, none of the menu icons work in FF or Mozilla or Epiphany or Konqueror or Dillo. (I haven't tried Lynx.) But Opera works. Anyone want's to badger the folks at http://www.warrantycentral.net, btw, it's fine with me. I already went over the line and lost my cool with one of their support techs over the lack of FF support. Bad advocacy, I know. But sometimes there's just nothing else for it. |
| helios Jul 07, 2006 7:16 PM EDT |
"Bear in my however that this is far from being a typical case. This is not a general case and is not to be considered as an excuse for choosing freedom restricting software in cases where you really could have fared well enough with Free Software as well...." Daniel I don't give a damn if it's far from being a typical case. It is MY case. It is simple for those not faced with the brute force of lung cancer, or any other deadly condition, to bandy about philosophical arguments. I have been guilty of such bandying in the past and have come to understand how easy it is to minimize another's dire circumstance. Is the author of this life-saving FOSS software going to keep up with the daily and sometimes hourly updates necessary for the program to remain effective? I am emailed four to six patches a week to keep mine up to date. I receive at least two disks in the mail as backups in the event I did not receive the emails. A missed reading or glitched bit of code can cost me my life. So, you are right...this is not a "normal" circumstance and should not be presented as the framework for any argument against FOSS. My point was that everyone has his price Daniel...everyone. One who demands absolutes on either side of this argument exhibits severely flawed logic. When a life depends on a cluster of ones and zeros, I will choose the cluster written by the entity with something to lose if his product fails. It is an odd but mutually beneficial relationship. Personally, I don't know that I would want that kind of responsibility. I stand grateful that there are those who are brave enough to do so...and I will gladly pay thier price. |
| Libervis Jul 07, 2006 7:42 PM EDT |
Helios:Quoting:Daniel I don't give a damn if it's far from being a typical case. It is MY case. It is simple for those not faced with the brute force of lung cancer, or any other deadly condition, to bandy about philosophical arguments. I have been guilty of such bandying in the past and have come to understand how easy it is to minimize another's dire circumstance. I can understand that. I am very sorry about your condition. My comment about it not being a typical case wasn't directed only at you, but was more of a general note for any reader. Quoting:Is the author of this life-saving FOSS software going to keep up with the daily and sometimes hourly updates necessary for the program to remain effective? I am emailed four to six patches a week to keep mine up to date. I receive at least two disks in the mail as backups in the event I did not receive the emails. A missed reading or glitched bit of code can cost me my life. I think it's quite possible. It is clear that this is a special case and that extra attention is necessary, and hence I wouldn't imagine an individual developer doing it alone on his spare time of course. I'd rather imagine a medical Free Software company creating Free Software for these purposes leaving it to the community of others interested in both the software and medical field to inspect and submit improvements which may actually increase the final reliability of the code. The company can charge for the actual support service which is here apparently crucial. But I'll emphasize the point that a Free Software code here may really be of better reliability than proprietary solution where code (with all its potential bugs) isn't visible (allowing the company to even cover the tracks should anything go wrong by their fault). Quoting:One who demands absolutes on either side of this argument exhibits severely flawed logic. I don't believe in absolutes and hence I don't demand them. I don't think my insistance on Free Software is about demanding absolutes. It is about not compromising where compromise isn't essential, where alternative choice exists. It is about prioritizing freedom over convenience. And on this priority list I have already put one's life at the top. To think otherwise would probably be the denial of freedom to live. I hope you get better. |
| wind0wsr3fund Jul 08, 2006 1:01 AM EDT |
grouch, stop trying to dilute the mission of the free software movement and I won't have to call you on it. |
| grouch Jul 08, 2006 2:19 AM EDT |
wind0wsr3fund: >"stop trying to dilute the mission of the free software movement and I won't have to call you on it." Stop confusing your mission, the FSF's mission and LXer's mission and I won't have to consider you a slobbering idiot. Maybe. Your criticism of LXer for allowing me to post an article, which is clearly within the scope of LXer's stated purpose, is stupid, at best. Your attempt to impose your mission, whatever it is, on LXer is futile. LXer attempts to present news related to GNU/Linux and free/open source software. "The Free Software Foundation (FSF), established in 1985, is dedicated to promoting computer users' rights to use, study, copy, modify, and redistribute computer programs. The FSF promotes the development and use of free software, particularly the GNU operating system, used widely in its GNU/Linux variant." -- http://www.fsf.org Can you not see a difference? |
| Teron Jul 08, 2006 3:41 AM EDT |
Sheesh, where am I? Battle.net?
Then again, this is a deiscussion of ethics, and as such strong opinions are to be expected. Anyway... While I'm mostly a pragmatic fellow (With more than a small bit of idealism thrown in, mind you), I'm convinced that both extreme "RMS drones" AND overt pragmatics who give value only to utility, discarding ethics pretty much completely are needed. Why? There are different people in this world. There could be folk who'd start using FOSS as soon as there's an app that's not necessarily better than the closed one, but close enough. The rest of the disparity is made up by the ethical side. Then there's folk who just don't give a shit about ideology. They just want an app that works better, period. As soon as the FOSS alternative becomes better, they'd switch. The freedom to tinker with code is just a practical value among others to them. Then there's the FOSS extremists who would use an infreior app because it's free. I don't blame you, I just am not that type of person. Even you are needed. There might be people who consider Linux an inferior system to Windows, but upon hearing of the free software ideology, will attempt to convert just because of the ethical stuff. There's a place for all of us. There's a place for FOSS projects, for commercial FOSS vendors, there's a place for good, honest companies like Opera Software ASA who just make a product, support open standards and compete on merits. There's no place for Microsoft trying to dominate every friggin' PC in the world. Bottom line: Make proprietary software if you wish, if you want the absolute power over the code. But don't abuse that power. Open standards and vendor trustworthiness>all. [/ramble] |
| hkwint Jul 08, 2006 9:29 AM EDT |
It's sad to see some people think in only black and white. According to some opinions above, I am a threat to free software. This is because I use some non free software. Like sbergman pointed out, I had the choice of using 100% proprietary software or 95% open source software and 5% proprietary software. Since I use the 95% open source software, I tell others about it and write about it. I am converting a fellow cursist - who studies system administration on a school that almost only offers MS - to Linux. Nonetheless, some people would like to call me a threat to FreeS, and would say the biggest threat to Free Software is Free Software users. I'd wonder if they think zealots are a threat to open source. I'd say they are. They try to take away the choice of people to choose a convenient proprietary option instead of the free one. Taking away the convenient option may prevent them from trying free software, because they don't have the time to fiddle for three months to make things work. Most annoying is, the people only thinking in black and white often forget some people in this world just have to get some work done. For example, take Autodesk Inventor. It would be great if there was a free, open source alternative. Sadly, there isn't. Nonetheless, some people need it to get their work done, and would just not function if they didn't use it. I use the non-free Euroglot to get my work done. If someone would take away my freedom by saying I am a threat to Free Software, and I shouldn't use proprietary software to get my work done, I would have no other choice than quitting to use that tool, and since there is no replacement, I couldn't go on with my work. Like I said before, some freedoms take away others, and some people in this thread try to choose for me which of those freedoms I should choose and which ones I should let slip away. That's got nothing to do with Freedom of Choice! About the weakening of the term freedom: In which word would you rather live: A world in which 1% of the people live in a free country and 99% live in a dictatorship, or in a world in which 50% live in a rather free country and the rest live in a dictatorship? In which world should the free people be the most afraid of their freedom being taken away? |
| jdixon Jul 08, 2006 10:34 AM EDT |
> In which world should the free people be the most afraid of their freedom being taken away? From way you ask the question, I assume you think the answer is the 1%. You would be wrong. The key to the correct answer is that people living under a dictatorship don't have to worry about their freedom being taken away, but people who live in a nominally free country do. The greatest threat to most free countries is not outside dictatorships, but their own governments. |
| sbergman27 Jul 08, 2006 11:33 AM EDT |
I think what it all comes down to is balance. Extreme positions are rarely correct positions, the world being the complicated and messy place that it is. I've actually been pleased in this thread to see that some members that I had thought tended toward the extremist side actually value balance more than I had expected. Basically, what I've seen in this thread are 3 arguments: 1. The "Cracked Foundation" argument. 2. The "Pragmatism Is Most Effective" argument. 3. The "Monomaniacal Blathering" argument. I'm pleased to say that #3 has been fairly well localized and contained. (OK! OK! Localized to Wind0wsr3fund.) Libveris stated the Cracked Foundation argument quite nicely here: """You know, I think those compromises could be like holes in bricks. You build a skyscraper with those bricks and what do you get, a nice but unstable building. If you built it with full quality bricks instead the skyscraper would be more stable and long lasting. So while it may be true that building with bricks with holes may be easier because they may be easier/cheaper to get, they wont amount to a stable building.""" I can sympathize. However, the L/GPL insures that the proprietary software remains separate and distinct. I see them more as Venetian miniblinds than as bricks. They can easily be switched out for rolling shades when desired. At such time as there is a suitable FOSS replacement, a couple of apt-get or yum commands and they are replaced. It's not as though proprietary code is getting inextricably intermingled with FOSS code; Sometimes I get the impression that those who are the most adamant about software freedom have the least faith in the L/GPL. (Note that other FOSS licenses also protect against inextricable mingling with proprietary code, though they are less effective in preventing FOSS code from being "Borgified" and used against us. But that's a different problem.) Of course, proprietary packages are not totally innocuous. A proprietary libc becoming popular would be reason for worry, to say the least. (Of course, such could not be distributed in a distro, but individual users could still download it from LockInLibc.com.) In a less drastic way, libqt before the GPL licensing was justifiable cause for concern. So vigilance and continued application of common sense is indicated. But it's not as though we're setting the machine into motion now and can't adapt to changing conditions, like the availability of FOSS replacements, later. I think I have already said enough about the "Pragmatism is most effective" view so I won't harp on it here. The monomaniacal blathering, I think, speaks for itself. |
| wind0wsr3fund Jul 08, 2006 11:42 AM EDT |
I'm really not impressed by someone who calls me a zealot in order to justify their own lack of convictions. I see the name calling as nothing more than a self defense tactic. Another common error is the "freedom of choice" approach. The free software movement is not about providing freedom of choice for the *sake* of choice. Rather, it says that you should be able to choose from software that is free. In other words, when it comes to software, freedoms 0-3 have first priority. Once those freedoms have been established, now you should feel free to choose the best of breed according to your needs. There is nothing horonable, ethical, or respectable about your freedom to choose if it involves the possibility of choosing software that impacts other people's freedoms (as in 0-3). As far as LXer is concerned, I'm not especially concerned with what their mission is. Simply looking at the sheer volume of articles that push non-free software onto the GNU/Linux (and to a larger extent, the free software) community justifies my comments. The "reporting" is irresponsible at best. Now to the issue of "black and white". It's not really that hard to understand... Freedoms 0-3 are well understood and well documented. If you have em', consider things to be white. If you don't, consider things to be black. There you go... black and white. There is no grey here. If you only have freedoms 0 and 1, guess what? black! If you have freedoms 3 and 2 but not 0 and 1, you don't have %50 percent and you're not in some shade of grey, you have non-free software and therefore, you are in a state of black. Freedoms 0-3 do not involve any other freedom aside from what is clearly documented. So when you say that your freedom to (insert string here) is affected, you are off topic. Aside from being out in left field, you are also showing the person with whom you are voicing your concerns to that you have never read the GPL and therefore, are not even sure what it is you are debating. Quite foolish actually. So to those who fall into this category (you know who you are), do me a favor please. If you are going to get into a debate with me. educate yourself first. Learn about what it is that you are so quick to speak out against. Then, before speaking, learn the language. For example, don't speak to a free software advocate about the pros and cons of "Open Source". We don't *do* Open Source. Don't use stupid acronyms like FOSS in an effort to show me you are "in the loop". Instead, show me you do know something by avoiding terminology like "closed source" when speaking about non-free software. When you've done the research and can speak the language, I (and others I'm sure) will be much more open to investing our time with you in order to discuss some of the more interesting aspects of the movement like ethics, social impact, and more. |
| wind0wsr3fund Jul 08, 2006 12:03 PM EDT |
sbergman27, Uh, ok I get it now... You obviously don't even work with computers. "I can sympathize. However, the L/GPL insures that the proprietary software remains separate and distinct. I see them more as Venetian miniblinds than as bricks. They can easily be switched out for rolling shades when desired." and what about the data???????? Have you ever tried to migrate important data from a non-free application to a free one only to find out that it is never going to happen because the data is stored in a proprietary format? I'm not talking about .doc files here or something so common. Think bigger, more important (not to say that Word documents can't contain critical info!). Image a hospital that uses a non-free software solution to scan patient's medical record into non standard .tiff images that can only be read by the vendor's non-free client due to the secret headers that are placed into each file. No need to imagine, I've worked at this hospital and watched jaws hit the floor when it was realized that we'd never be able to replace the application with something more desireable due to this lock-in factor. How about the artist that composes music on their computer using non-free sequences, DSP engines, and various other mid/audio applications who years later, learns that the applications used to create those works are now indispensable because they are the only applications that the artist can use to open and modify the files? Another form of lock in but this time, on a more personal note. Again, no need to imagine this scenario. I've composed 2 albums worth of material that is forever dependant on the applications that run on a non-networked computer running Windows 98lite sitting in the corner of my apartment collecting dust. You need to give more thought to the real world consequences that come about when people are denied free access to the source and stop thinking about what is more convenient for you short term. Your justfications are both selfish, and short sighted. Also, if you read Libveris' comment again, you'll see that he's not really talking about a building... He's actually saying the same thing I am. |
| grouch Jul 08, 2006 2:35 PM EDT |
wind0wsr3fund: >"As far as LXer is concerned, I'm not especially concerned with what their mission is. Simply looking at the sheer volume of articles that push non-free software onto the GNU/Linux (and to a larger extent, the free software) community justifies my comments. The "reporting" is irresponsible at best." 1. It is obvious you are unconcerned with the mission of LXer. It is equally obvious you are unconcerned with any mission except your own. 2. There are no articles on LXer "push[ing]" non-free software. 3. LXer mainly presents news originating elsewhere, along with an opportunity and place for readers to comment about those articles. Original articles hosted on LXer are almost entirely advocacy articles. LXer therefore remains true to its claims, "reporting" about GNU/Linux and free/open source software. You don't want news. You want only that which pushes your agenda. You apparently do not want reality interfering with your jihad. Your focus is upon filtering the news to suit your agenda, rather than presenting reasoned arguments for free software in the specific cases where non-free software is reported in the news. Your answer to such reports, typically, is to attack LXer for showing readers those reports. You have failed to install the same blinders on LXer that you have chosen to wear for yourself. LXer does not filter the news to present only those stories which further your agenda. LXer continues to depend on sensible readers presenting commentary which supplements, highlights, counters, or gives alternatives to news reports. It has two prongs: news and opinion. Some opinions, such as your opinion that LXer is "irresponsible" for presenting news that does not favor your agenda, are irrational. Many opinions appearing on LXer are from readers who offer insight into the news reports presented. These comments are helpful to people who are interested in GNU/Linux and free/open source software. Many of the comments by such readers effectively debunk FUD or false claims by the opponents of GNU/Linux and FOSS. Many provide facts showing tangible advantages to using GNU/Linux and FOSS. Irrational attacks on LXer, for not presenting a very narrow subset of news affecting GNU/Linux and FOSS, are not helpful to those who seek to understand why there is so much news about GNU/Linux and FOSS, nor is it helpful to those who might be susceptible to misinformation in news reports regarding FOSS, nor are such irrational attacks helpful in advocating free software for the freedom and protection it provides to users (individuals and corporations). Irrational attacks provide fuel for those who seek to discredit FOSS. |
| tuxchick2 Jul 08, 2006 2:39 PM EDT |
wind0wsr3fund, have you ever posted a single story? Have you done anything besides complain? Have you hosted your own Linux news site? I believe all answers are No. So why should anyone listen to you? |
| sbergman27 Jul 08, 2006 3:26 PM EDT |
Wind0wsrefund, Last I checked, Opera's config files do not contain a massive amount of data. Nor does IE running under Wine. NVidia's display driver? Ditto. Doom3/Linux? check! (First person shooters are my own personal vice.) Running MS Office under Crossover Office? Well, I haven't had need to do that anywhere. OO.o has always been acceptable. But if there was a need to do it, that would fall into the category of "it depends upon how it is used". One can make the decision to use or not to use on a case by case basis, taking into account all the relevant factors. But that would be a shade of gray, and you only seem to see in 1 bit color. Even apps for, say, SMB accounting (of which OSS has none), allow export to ascii or other formats. Do such dangerous "roach motel" packages as you describe exist? Certainly. But a little due dilligence can steer one around those holes. At any rate, outside of my own data, that of my clientele, and government data, I'm not too concerned about locked up data. What applications people use to store their data is their own business, not mine. (And not yours, either, BTW.) On the other hand, I have great interest in the protection of FOSS code. (And no, I'm not going to play FSF word games and call it something else, or distinguish between Free Software and OSS software when they are really one and the same, despite RMS' rhetoric.) Edit: I don't see that you and Libveris are saying the same thing at all. There is a huge difference between "feeling very strongly" and absolutism. |
| Libervis Jul 08, 2006 4:59 PM EDT |
I would dare to define myself as a pragmatic ideologist. I see it as using pragmatic methodologies where they further the ideology I believe in. However I do believe in it mind you. My ideological belief doesn't serve my pragmatism. It is vice versa. My pragmatism serves my ideology. That said, what I was arguing against in this thread is upside down view where convenience, practicalities, short term benefits and similar characteristics of those who often call themselves "pragmatics" become more important than the higher values such as freedom. And that is, I believe, the open source philosophy. You don't need to be a genious to figure out that I am against that philosophy. Open Source turned things upside down. It is using ideology as a servant to pragmatism. I mean think about it guys? Who started writing the Free Operating System and why? It was Richard Stallman who started writing GNU and because he wanted an operating system that people can use in freedom. The fact that this operating system was free as in freedom allowed cooperation and consequential development model that Open Sourcers saw as superior to the proprietary one. Then they took that model, disregarded what caused its superiority (the freedom ideology) and promoted the model alone for the sake of the model itself. In other words they took the model produced by a Free Software ideology and made that model their ideology, rather than the Free Software ideology which spawned it. And I can't see that as a good thing. I would even call it shortsighted. You can't be a pragmatic for the sake of being pragmatic alone. Pragmatism is nothing but a tool which you use to further your higher goals. And this is crucial thing to understand: you user this tool of pragmacy *only* when doing so does not go against that higher goal. Otherwise it would be twisting and sacrificing your goal in the long term. That said I think sbergman27 is doing a good job. I don't know the details of his work and I can't therefore say if he is making the right choices per what I described above every time, but if he is really choosing Free Software always and every time there is such a choice then more power to him. As for wind0wsr3fund I agree with most things he says actually, short of criticism against LXer.com reporting. I think LXer.com is nothing but a medium which allows content that is mediated be commented and critiqued upon. It is just a mediator of raw information, not a propaganda website. One critique I would have for wind0wsr3fund is merely against his style, and I say this with good intentions. Sometimes direct assault-style advocacy just doesn't work. Demonstrating some friendliness is a good thing. We sure don't want to make enemies of the ones we are trying to persuade, before we have even started the persuasion process. Thank you |
| tuxtom Jul 08, 2006 6:04 PM EDT |
Libveris: you remind me of the Hybrid owners on South Park....inhale DEEPLY. |
| wind0wsr3fund Jul 08, 2006 7:04 PM EDT |
Libervis, Always a pleasure to read your posts. You hit the nail on the head every time. As for my style being more "personal", I confess guilt. To put it simply, I know at least 2 things when it comes to the issue of a person subscribing to the philosophy behind free software: 1. A person's stance on the issue refects their own morals and sense of ethics. 2. If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. That said, I'm not here to make friends. I'm certainly not against it but that is not my priority. When I see a person riding the "Open Source" bandwagon, I'll be the first to give them the benefit of the doubt and offer them insight as to where the campaign falls short compared to the issues raised by the FS movement. Once I get a sense that this person is either too ignorant, self-absorbed, conditioned, or short sighted to join the good fight, my only obligation is to call them on their bull so at the very least, others/newcomers will have an opportunity to see it for what it really is. I'm not going to bother naming names but there are certainly quite a few of these people on this forum. It's a shame that your insightful posts go to such waste. Some of us however, do appreciate your point of view. Sbergman27, How dare you describe RMS' contributions as "rhetoric"! I've rarely heard such an ungrateful claim that displays such a complete lack of historical understanding of how Free Software has evolved. Where would your Open Source Linux kernel be without the GPL? In case you don't know, it would be nowhere. There wouldn't even be an LXer.com website for you to learn new ways to bastardize your OS because Linux would have 0% marketshare and a userbase of no more than 20 people. As for not playing word games, the term "free software" was around long before the CEO-friendly buzz term "Open Source" was created. So every time you use "FOSS", it's YOU who are playing the game. The saddest part about is that you're playing a game that was created for the purpose of tricking people. Again, if you would just take a moment to *study* that which you speak so loudly about, you would know that everything I say is absolute truth. or... you can continue in that state of bliss you seem to be so content with. |
| sbergman27 Jul 08, 2006 8:50 PM EDT |
> ungrateful claim that displays such a complete lack of historical understanding of how Free Software has evolved. How long have you been a Free Software advocate? I'm using the term loosely since your style clearly falls under the category of "bad" advocacy. But I'm curious how long you've been doing it. |
| wind0wsr3fund Jul 08, 2006 9:03 PM EDT |
is that your attempt at a public apology or an attempt to shift the focus? |
| sbergman27 Jul 08, 2006 9:10 PM EDT |
Curiosity. |
| wind0wsr3fund Jul 08, 2006 9:43 PM EDT |
long enough to know your comment about Richard Stallman's work is disrespectful. |
| hkwint Jul 09, 2006 2:49 AM EDT |
Changed my mind and reaction: No need to argue further. |
| Teron Jul 09, 2006 8:52 AM EDT |
I agree with you, Kwint. No reason in this. He's blind, and thinks we're blind. It's probably better to just leave it as it is. |
| jdixon Jul 09, 2006 10:08 AM EDT |
> He's blind, and thinks we're blind. One of the disadvantages of staring into the sun is that it can blind you to the world which surrounds you. |
| sbergman27 Jul 09, 2006 10:58 AM EDT |
Jdixon, That's quite good. Very, very apt. |
| devnet Jul 10, 2006 5:10 AM EDT |
Man, I opened up a can of worms didn't I? Well, just to give a follow up on why I posted my reaction to this thread in the first place... Opera 9 was available from 4-5 repos about 3 days after it was released. This "news" never hit the front pages of Lxer nor was it posted. Had I known that package announcements were considered front page "news" I might have posted those 4-5 distros so they could get some needed exposure right? That's my point of why this is silly...Ubuntu got a fat boost from this article which I still consider nothing more than mailing list traffic. Unless ALL Linux distros are given equal representation, I'll continue to consider this article silly and something that shouldn't have been posted to Lxer in the first place. Quoting:Changed my mind and reaction: No need to argue further. Actually, I think wind0wsr3fund asked a good question...I think it deserves an answer. Quoting:> He's blind, and thinks we're blind. This made no sense. He's obviously not blind, otherwise anything he said on the subject would automatically be dismissed and no one would respond to him. Would you listen to a blind man that said he saw Jimmy Hoffa walk by? Heck no you wouldn't. So while your comments allow you to take a hard stance against Mr. R3fund, you fail to see that his point of view, while extreme compared to yours, is still a point of view that is valid. For every wind0wsr3fund there are hundreds, if not thousands of others that share or will share his view. If you can't successfully debate your own position on subjects, perhaps a re-evaluation of said subjects and your stance on them would be in order. |
| jimf Jul 10, 2006 6:47 AM EDT |
> Actually, I think wind0wsr3fund asked a good question...I think it deserves an answer. Actually no. Read back thurgh the thread. wind0wsr3fund used his irational ranting and absoluteist retoric to the point that he turned off nearly everyone in the thread. He gave up the 'right' to an answer. |
| SFN Jul 10, 2006 6:56 AM EDT |
I thought this thread was about the idea that it was silly to promote Opera 9 being available for Ubuntu when it's been available for other distros for a while. |
| jdixon Jul 10, 2006 7:07 AM EDT |
> This made no sense. RMS can be consider the sun of FOSS. The original source from which the FOSS community developed. > you fail to see that his point of view, while extreme compared to yours, is still a point of view that is valid. HIs viewpoint may be valid. His castigating of LXer and the other readers for not sharing his viewpoint is not. There's plenty of room for all of the viewpoints brought up in this discussion. Reasonable people can disagree. |
| jimf Jul 10, 2006 7:26 AM EDT |
> I thought this thread was about the idea that it was silly to promote Opera 9 being available for Ubuntu when it's been available for other distros for a while. Sure does look like a hijack :) |
| SFN Jul 10, 2006 7:31 AM EDT |
I've started the Nazi/Communist Metaphor Countdown Timer(tm). |
| Libervis Jul 10, 2006 8:37 AM EDT |
devnet:Quoting: (...) If you can't successfully debate your own position on subjects, perhaps a re-evaluation of said subjects and your stance on them would be in order. Well said. I was waiting for someone to bring that point up. I didn't myself because I got tired of accusations by those who are apparently all too quick to retreat to ignorance. Just the mere fact that wind0wsr3fund's style was unfriendly was all too enough for some people to completely disregard what he is actually saying and shoot him with the labels such as "blind extremist" and "absolutist". Can't you be a *little more* open minded than that folks? See the wider angle maybe? It's very easy to throw labels you know, but IMO that's the last thing to do in a reasonable discussion. jdixon: Quoting:RMS can be consider the sun of FOSS. The original source from which the FOSS community developed. It still didn't make much sense. RMS is not God. He is human just as any of us. He just happened to be someone with enough audacity and courage to go against the flow for the protection of certain higher values. And he keeps to those values to this day. We merely take inspiration from people like him and were convinced that the philosophy he promotes is the right one. That in no way implies that we blindfully follow him without any questioning at all. It is exactly because we are not the kinds of people who "believe without question" that we discovered the philosophy of Free Software in the first place. Only open minded people can really appreciate what Free Software movement is all about. Quoting:HIs viewpoint may be valid. His castigating of LXer and the other readers for not sharing his viewpoint is not. There's plenty of room for all of the viewpoints brought up in this discussion. Reasonable people can disagree. I don't agree with his "castigating" of LXer either. However that alone isn't an excuse for not addressing his points and for calling him names. You didn't merely say "I disagree and am free to disagree", you went and called him "blind" with your post. Now tell me what is his reaction supposed to be after that? You expect him to respond nicely to that? You expect a reasonable discussion? Did you notice he didn't even respond to that? That may infact speak more highly of him. Thank you |
| jimf Jul 10, 2006 9:14 AM EDT |
> Reasonable people can disagree. Definately, and, you've been quite reasonable Daniel. wind0wsr3fund was not. If some responded in kind, it's not the ideal, but, quite understandable. I just don't see that anything positive will now come from rehashing of this thread. |
| wind0wsr3fund Jul 10, 2006 9:25 AM EDT |
Libervis, "Now tell me what is his reaction supposed to be after that? You expect him to respond nicely to that? You expect a reasonable discussion?" Right, no need to get into a flamewar and name-calling exchange. I am simply here to inject a solid dose of free software advocacy into the every day "ride the bandwagon" mentality I see being fueled by the Open Source movement. It is my hope that though our efforts, some of these Open Source folk will realize that there is a bigger mission, a greater goal, and a real need to draw attention to the larger agenda of promoting and protecting freedoms 0-3. Honestly, I believe that many who subscribe to OS are trying to fight the good fight and are merely distracted and kept in the dark by the "bigger, faster, and cheaper" propaganda put forward from the likes of Eric Raymond, the OSI, and other influences. I still chose to believe that any logical, good natured, and caring individual who, after being exposed to the underlying issues surrounding the cause of the free software movement, will realign themselves appropriately. As I've said before, "if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem". To expand on that idea, I'll just add that the indifferent fall into the latter category. Just how many fall into this group? Is it 10% or 95%? What ever the ratio is, it is too high! Freedom affects everyone and therefore, each of us has an ethical obligation to participate in its destiny. A person's ignorance is acceptable when only that person is affected. This is simply not the case when we are talking about computing. Moral issues became ethical issues with the birth of the network. Now, a person's ignorance fuels various business models that are hell bent on initially limiting and eventually recalling my freedoms in order to meet their bottom line objectives. While I am not paranoid enough to view this person's actions as intentional, I am certainly wise enough to know that this is the person who must be educated as to the consequences of their actions and/or [lack of] beliefs. |
| Teron Jul 10, 2006 9:51 AM EDT |
That theory has one fallacy - You assume that every proprietary vendor is like Microsoft. |
| Libervis Jul 10, 2006 9:56 AM EDT |
Teron, not really I don't think. If it is proprietary than that means at least one of the four freedoms is missing, and that's the whole point. We believe all four are essential just as freedom of speech and other human rights. Microsoft is simply worst of them all. |
| jdixon Jul 10, 2006 10:31 AM EDT |
> You didn't merely say "I disagree and am free to disagree", I didn't think it was necessary. Obviously, I was wrong. > you went and called him "blind" with your post. No, I didn't. I quoted someone who did, and used an analogy which seemed appropriate to situation at hand. Staring too long at the sun, whether in a physical or philosophical sense, can blind you to the world which surrounds you. Concentrating too much on the fundamental tenants of a philosophy, rather than how it is best applied to the real world, can be reasonably be compared to staring at the sun too long. Wind0wsr3fund is concentrating on the tenants, and complaining about those who are concentrating on the application. A philosophy is an set of abstract ideas which must be applied to the real world. Doing so will, somewhere along the line, require prioritizing and/or compromising. Different people will prioritize and/or comprise differently. Everbody in this discussion, except wind0wsr3fund, seems to be willing to accept that. |
| Libervis Jul 10, 2006 11:48 AM EDT |
Quoting:> You didn't merely say "I disagree and am free to disagree", Well, maybe you could have just not said anything in that case. It would be better than jumping on the name calling bandwagon. Quoting:No, I didn't. I quoted someone who did, and used an analogy which seemed appropriate to situation at hand. In other words you jumped on the bandwagon. :P Quoting: Staring too long at the sun, whether in a physical or philosophical sense, can blind you to the world which surrounds you. Concentrating too much on the fundamental tenants of a philosophy, rather than how it is best applied to the real world, can be reasonably be compared to staring at the sun too long. Wind0wsr3fund is concentrating on the tenants, and complaining about those who are concentrating on the application. You explained it really nice here.. you really did, but I don't think it reflects the actual truth of the matter. There is no Sun. Free Software philosophy wasn't just a theory someone made up. It is a response to the events in the *real world* you are talking about, in an attempt to restore freedom in a world of software development and use. In a way this philosophy is a guideline which must be followed for this restoration to occur. We are not talking about a religion. We are talking about a sociopolitical movement which must have certain pririties set in a certain way to even be called a sociopolitical movement. If you start valuing pragmacy over freedom the only thing you are "moving" towards is better software, but fundamentally you're not really changing anything because it is not so important for you wether the software is Free or proprietary. It is more important for you that it works better. Messed up priorities. Quoting: A philosophy is an set of abstract ideas which must be applied to the real world. Free Software philosophy is a response to the state of the real world. And there is nothing so abstract about it. It is a clear guideline of how to act if we want to have freedom in a world of software. Quoting:Doing so will, somewhere along the line, require prioritizing and/or compromising. Different people will prioritize and/or comprise differently. Every compromise that wasn't absolutely necessary (or in other words forced upon you by the lack of other choice) is an unnecessary detriment to the goal of Free Software movement. Quoting: Everbody in this discussion, except wind0wsr3fund, seems to be willing to accept that. The only thing I accept is that some people will, no matter what arguments, evidence or whatever they're presented with, still choose to disagree and go their own way. Sure, I can't force anyone to anything nor I advocate that. I don't think wind0wsr3fund advocates that either. But we have the right to say that we consider such choices wrong ourselves. His remark on LXer.com was, I think, the talk of zeal (and I already said I don't like his style of advocacy anyway). But we're not in a courtroom nor am I his lawyer. ;) Thank you |
| jdixon Jul 10, 2006 12:21 PM EDT |
> Well, maybe you could have just not said anything in that case. I could have yes, but I've always had difficulty resisting an apt metaphor. > In other words you jumped on the bandwagon. In your opinion, obviously. > We are not talking about a religion. I'm not sure that's true in this case. > but fundamentally you're not really changing anything because it is not so important for you wether the software is Free or proprietary. It is more important for you that it works better. Where have I said I don't consider free software important? I have implicitly agreed with sbergman27 that it's not the best solution for every situation, but that's not even remotely the same thing. > I don't think wind0wsr3fund advocates that either. I assume not, but his arguing style gives the impression otherwise. > But we have the right to say that we consider such choices wrong ourselves. I haven't seen anyone say otherwise. Those whose choices are being criticized are also free to say what they think of the criticisms. In my opinion, wind0wsr3fund's criticisms are either completely unfounded or extemely overstated. It's like arguing with a fellow church member for sitting on the other side of the church. |
| SFN Jul 10, 2006 12:34 PM EDT |
How 'bout them Tigers? Is that Baseball or what? |
| hkwint Jul 10, 2006 12:36 PM EDT |
I can agree that it's a little strange to see this 'silly news' on a web page like LXer, and I would probably have deleted it. Grouch didn't, and he has his reasons for that. Now, Adam (because I think that's who you are), please look at http://windowsrefund.org Not much changed over there the last six months I believe. I neither put too much work in that issue. It's ok to start a discussion in this topic, but personally, I believe enabling computer buyers to buy a computer without Windows, to be able to enjoy freedoms 0-3, deserves your attention more. BTW please avoid saying you are always right in the future. It makes you look dumb. BTW2: Your last post made sense to me. |
| jdixon Jul 10, 2006 12:37 PM EDT |
> How 'bout them Tigers? Is that Baseball or what? Your blatant attempt to hijack the conversation is that obviously that of a frustrated topic Nazi. :) |
| Libervis Jul 10, 2006 12:55 PM EDT |
jdixon:Quoting:Where have I said I don't consider free software important? I have implicitly agreed with sbergman27 that it's not the best solution for every situation, but that's not even remotely the same thing. I know you consider Free Software important and that was not the point. The point was about considering Free Software principles less important than technical superiority of software in general. You've put that above Free Software, not below. But I wasn't necessarily meaning you directly when I said "you". I was speaking hypothetically, about the general case. Though it seems you do fit the bill anyway. You guys are participants of the "Open Source" movement. What Open Source movement promotes is essentially the development of *better software* through a *better development model*. By putting emphasis on that it fails to emphasize freedom as the core value and hence Open Source supporters willingly accept nonfree software when they believe it is in a particular case technically better. That would suggest that Open Source never was about values any higher than pragmatism for the sake of better software and pragmatism itself thinking that this way they can spread some Free Software like GNU/Linux better. If they thought this would spread the value of freedom along they were utterly wrong and the vagueness of the term "open source" and number of people using GNU/Linux, but knowing nothing about the reason why it exists (hence being all too willing to give up the freedom they got the next opportunity which shows) is a testament to that. So ok, you may disagree. You are an open source supporter. I am not. I believe the choice of freedom is more important than choice of better software. And there lies the fundamental difference between us. Thank you |
| jdixon Jul 10, 2006 1:31 PM EDT |
> But I wasn't necessarily meaning you directly when I said "you". Good. > You guys are participants of the "Open Source" movement. No. I'm not. > That would suggest that Open Source never was about values any higher than pragmatism for the sake of better software and pragmatism itself thinking that this way they can spread some Free Software like GNU/Linux better. I would say you are correct, yes. > You are an open source supporter. No, I'm not. I support free software, not open source. Open source is a good thing, but it's only one aspect of free software. > I am not. I believe the choice of freedom is more important than choice of better software. And there lies the fundamental difference between us. You're mistaken. Both about me and (as far as I can tell) about most of the other posters on this discussion. We make different choices than you would, but we agree on the ideals. |
| Libervis Jul 10, 2006 1:40 PM EDT |
Hmm.. then you don't seem to put your ideals to practice always. I mean if you really think that freedom is more important than just better software, then you'll use an inferior Free Software program if it exists even when a wholy superior proprietary equivalent exists, right? |
| Teron Jul 10, 2006 1:45 PM EDT |
Excellent post, Libervis. Even if I am not nearly where you are, I can appreciate that. You make your stance clear, you put up good, pretty much rational arguments in it's favour, and do so in a way that I don't find the least bit offending. PS: I am not in the camp that's purely pragmatic, either - pragmatism and ethics have approx. equal value to me in most cases relating to software. (Which is why I have an extreme dislike of M$, proprietary format-caused vendor lock-in, as well as DRM in 90% of the cases, and outright hatred for software patents and "Trusted" Computing. (The whole PS just to put things into perspective. The abovementioned dislikes are partially pragmatic, but for the most part their cause is in ethics) EDIT: This post refers to the post where Libervis quotes jdixon saying "Where have I said I don't...". Seemingly others were faster than me. EDIT2: And, to answer to the above post by Libervis: That depends on the degree of inferiority. I can, and usually do, put up with a program that's not nearly as good as something made by big firms, but is FOSS or made by a "good" proprietary vendor like Opera. Of course, in the browser case, both the FOSS and "good proprietary" alternative wipe the floor with IE, so I use both, though mainly Firefox. |
| sbergman27 Jul 10, 2006 1:50 PM EDT |
>> You guys are participants of the "Open Source" movement. >No. I'm not. >> That would suggest that Open Source never was about values any higher than pragmatism for the sake of better software and pragmatism itself thinking that this way they can spread some Free Software like GNU/Linux better. >I would say you are correct, yes. Why do people persist in trying to pigeon-hole other people? For that matter, why do people allow themselves to be pigeon-holed? I know of not a single person in the community who is what some here would call 100% OSS (assuming you want to define it as complete pragmatism with no appreciation of software freedom, with which I would disagree, but...) I suppose there are a few people who are 100% FS, proud of it and ready to borgify^Wconvince the rest of us. But the vast majority of people I run into in the community are in between, with beliefs that span both camps. I sincerely feel that the FSF's insistence upon emphasizing the differences is damaging to the community as a whole (and yes, we're are one community), and has done far more harm than good. One thing is absolutely certain. I darn tootin' well am *NOT* going to get put in a neat category simply because it's convenient for someone else to think of me that way. And I don't think others should put up with it either. |
| jdixon Jul 10, 2006 2:00 PM EDT |
> Why do people persist in trying to pigeon-hole other people? Well, I wasn't rying to pigeon-hole anyone, merely guessing at the motivations of those who started the open source movement. |
| sbergman27 Jul 10, 2006 2:05 PM EDT |
I know. I wasn't talking at you. :-) It's just that I have seen so many places where the whole FS/OSS dichotomy has been taken as a mutually exclusive given. People are more complex than that. I seriously doubt that Eric Raymond himself would fit into what some seem to consider to be the OSS category. Not that Raymond is any great hero of mine. But if he's not in his proper pigeon hole, I can't imagine who in the community would be. |
| jdixon Jul 10, 2006 2:12 PM EDT |
> then you'll use an inferior Free Software program if it exists even when a wholy superior proprietary equivalent exists, right? If it meets my functional needs, yes. |
| Libervis Jul 10, 2006 2:17 PM EDT |
sbergman27:Quoting:I know of not a single person in the community who is what some here would call 100% OSS (assuming you want to define it as complete pragmatism with no appreciation of software freedom, with which I would disagree, but...) I suppose there are a few people who are 100% FS, proud of it and ready to borgify^Wconvince the rest of us. Maybe that's because those in the FS camp believe more strongly what they believe and are therefore more eager to defent it. The open source camp is the one who's spreading vagueness and it's natural to its philosophy to be vague and not so aggressive. Open Source is simply closer to conformism than Free Software. Quoting:But the vast majority of people I run into in the community are in between, with beliefs that span both camps. What is your definition of "in between" here? I can bet that alot of people who you would classify as "in between" are actually more inclined towards the open source philosophy and are, like you, uncomfortable in being categorized. I'd simply call those Open Source supporters. Quoting:I sincerely feel that the FSF's insistence upon emphasizing the differences is damaging to the community as a whole (and yes, we're are one community), and has done far more harm than good. FSF insists on clarity as opposed to the vagueness, and you well know that it is in vagueness where FUD spreads most effectively, where people are most likely to be decieved by those who wish to destroy the FOSS community. In that sense I would say that FSF's insistance helps keep the community strong by preventing its values to get shallow, rather than divide the community. The division, truth be told, comes from Open Source Initiative. It is what is creating this vagueness in which FUD, shallowness and confusion thrives. Quoting: One thing is absolutely certain. I darn tootin' well am *NOT* going to get put in a neat category simply because it's convenient for someone else to think of me that way. And I don't think others should put up with it either. Maybe that's because you simply don't believe strongly enough in either of the category definitions. Vagueness instead of clarity again. I can say I am with Free Software. I know exactly what I will consider to be Free Software and I know exactly what I will consider a Free Software supportive behaviour and one that is against it. Is it bad for one to be clear about this? I don't think so. Thank you |
| Libervis Jul 10, 2006 2:21 PM EDT |
One thing I want to clarify though is that by putting someone in a clear category I don't refuse to "mingle" with him or her or cooperate on anything on which we may cooperate without compromising either of our goals. I don't believe that we have to agree on absolutely every point or be in the same camp to be cooperators in a same community which most of us have contended to call "FOSS" community equally mentioning both camps where participants of both ideologies are referred to. |
| Libervis Jul 10, 2006 2:23 PM EDT |
jdixon: Quoting:If it meets my functional needs, yes. What if it doesn't? :D |
| Teron Jul 10, 2006 2:45 PM EDT |
Thenit, at least for me, is decided on a case-by-case basis, ie. are the faults really crippling or not? |
| sbergman27 Jul 10, 2006 3:36 PM EDT |
> One thing I want to clarify though is that by putting someone in a clear category I don't refuse to "mingle" with him or her or cooperate on anything on which we may cooperate without compromising either of our goals. Yes, Libervis. And I know that. As someone who believes in emphasizing similarities rather than differences, I simply find focusing on the distinction to be unnecessarily divisive. Whatever the motivations, or mix of motivations one might have, the concrete, real world, nuts and bolts goals of both camps, if one cares to make the distinction, have 90%+ overlap. How many software packages exist that are OSS but not FS or vice versa? If any exist at all, it must be a miniscule fraction. And that mythical "OSS Member" who only cares about what works and doesn't care at all about the freedoms FOSS gives, I think you will find to be quite elusive. Perhaps he's talked about a lot in FS circles. I dunno. But I've never met him. I just don't see the benefit in focusing, or harping, on differences. It encourages bad feeling and distracts us from the task at hand, which is actively spreading FOSS software. |
| jimf Jul 10, 2006 3:59 PM EDT |
It's all very nice to talk about the ideology of the GPL and the use of FOSS, but most of us need real tools/solutions/product. Given a choice, we see the advantages of free software and of GPL, but,I have to point out that, if I did not have freedom to choice all, I would not have used Linux since it would have been unusable for the jobs/work I do. I think many of us are in the same boat. Assuming that the software is close to equal in functionality, I'm sure that many of us think like this: #I need X program for Y job if exists X = Free GPL if not go to next if exists X = Free non GPL if not go to next if exists X = Proprietary if not go to next ? do I 'really really' need this if not end if so go to next if exists X = Microsoft When I started using Linux I 'needed' to use some MS apps. I now have it to the point where I never hit the MS line and rarely the Proprietary one. The situation continues to improve. So, any transition to GPL and Foss is a process, it's not a Zen moment. I realize it's not perfect, but that's as good as it gets in the real world. You'll get no apology for that. |
| Libervis Jul 10, 2006 4:11 PM EDT |
Quoting:As someone who believes in emphasizing similarities rather than differences, I simply find focusing on the distinction to be unnecessarily divisive. Whatever the motivations, or mix of motivations one might have, the concrete, real world, nuts and bolts goals of both camps, if one cares to make the distinction, have 90%+ overlap. There is not a big number of differences. It can actually be brought down to one *single* difference, but that one single difference matters alot and should at least be known. I agree that we shouldn't harp this difference on everyone every time we sit to work on something or even every time we discuss something not directly related to that difference, but I believe it still must be known for the sake of clarity, of knowing where each of us stand and knowing what to expect from each other as well. Imagine you have two friends of which one is an open source supporter who thinks freedom is important, but still finds it better to choose proprietary software in some cases than Free Software, even though some FS alternative exists. Another is a Free Software guy who strives to never make a compromise he doesn't have to make. They are friends and in many instances work together on some little projects. However there ought to be a time where the difference between their philosophical standing will *have* to pop up. For example, the open source guy may propose a great piece of proprietary software for use in one of their projects for which he believes a Free Software alternative isn't good enough. This is where Free Software guy will reject this option and prompt to go with the Free Software option anyway. Questions about the reasons behind this insistance may be asked and a discussion may develop, the difference will become known. What is an alternative? For the Free Software guy to be silent and just accepts what the Open Source guy wants to do even though it goes against his judgement? I don't think so. And then there is a point I already tried to make, that being aware of the difference allows for better clarity and defence from outside FUD. |
| Libervis Jul 10, 2006 4:20 PM EDT |
jimf, who do you think is most responsible for pushing things to improve that way? Who are the ones who stubbornly initiate the development of alternative Free Software applications even when an existing proprietary equivalent already exists, works well and is even ported to GNU/Linux? It is Free Software Movement led by the Free Software foundation! Want examples? Just look at the "How can you help" block where it lists some important projects in development like ATI drivers, gnash etc. at http://www.fsf.org What do most of the open source thinking guys do in the meantime? They use the proprietary option rather than using and trying to improve (by contributing in any way they can) the Free Software option that's being developed. If everyone was thinking the open source thinking, however, these alternatives would not be developed! Thank you |
| jimf Jul 10, 2006 4:40 PM EDT |
> What do most of the open source thinking guys do in the meantime? They use the proprietary option rather than using and trying to improve (by contributing in any way they can) the Free Software option that's being developed. That's utter nonsense. They most likely use the proprietary option rather than becoming non-functional, but in the meantime, contribute in any way they can to the Free Software option that's being developed. As I said before, this is a process, and uncompromising ideology only gets you so far. |
| sbergman27 Jul 10, 2006 4:47 PM EDT |
> That's utter nonsense. It's the sort of nonsense that putting people in black and white categories encourages. |
| Libervis Jul 10, 2006 5:02 PM EDT |
OK, it's nonsense then. I suppose everyone who uses proprietary software and calls himself freedom supporter contributes to the development of a Free alternative. Great! What about a situation where Free Software option doesn't exist? Who will initiate its development first? Open Source guy or the Free Software guy? Who will find it important enough to push for that? sbergman27: I see you have a phobia against categorization. I guess I should rephraze my question above like this then: "Who will initiate its development first? Guy-who-prioritizes-working-software-to-freedom or the guy-who-prioritizes-freedom-to-everything? There I escaped using categoric terms. :P |
| jimf Jul 10, 2006 5:25 PM EDT |
Well Daniel, I don't program anything (some of us don't ya know), I do support work for Linux whenever I can. Programmers I know usually have a day job, many times supporting' that other OS', and program for GPL'd stuff in the evening. Some like Steve are consultants and try to recommend and support Foss whenever the can do that without loosing the customer. Now that's the way it works. I suppose they could all quit and just program for FOSS, or Steve could tell them FOSS or no solution.... Oh... that's right, the kids might starve... But it's your ideal that counts. Talk about clueless. |
| sbergman27 Jul 10, 2006 5:46 PM EDT |
> sbergman27: I see you have a phobia against categorization. Not a phobia. A concern. > "Who will initiate its development first? Guy-who-prioritizes-working-softwar e-to-freedom or the guy-who-prioritizes-freedom-to-ever ything? Whoever has the most time and ability. Perhaps not struggling to fit round FS pegs into square holes will give the more pragmatic guy more time to work on his FOSS projects. Another thing that relates to this in a way. Back in 1997 or so, I decided to completely dump Windows 95. Partially (mostly, actually) it was idealistic. But from a practical standpoint, I felt that it would make me more effective at supporting Linux. And by and large that turned out to be true. But then Win98 came out. And ME, and 2000, and XP. And I have never run any of those at home. I support them a little bit at work when I absolutely have to. But for the most part, I let someone else at the office handle our Windows using customers. And what I am finding is that I am actually *less* effective at advocating and selling people on Linux because of my relative lack of first hand experience with the competition. You see, I know Linux's strengths. But I don't know first hand Windows' weaknesses. I know the various mantras we chant. Like "Windows is an unstable pile of crap". And "Windows is virus ridden". And "Windows is a resource hog". But that's different than having direct experience with what potential clients are using now. So I know that I should really get a Windows box on my home network and study it and work with it. Problem is... I can't get myself to do it. I despise Windows. I don't allow it in my home. It's actually a sort of identity thing: Steve Bergman is not the kind of guy who allows Microsoft Windows in his house. So I muddle along under that handicap. I'm quite serious about the above, BTW. I didn't make this up on the spot. |
| Libervis Jul 10, 2006 5:55 PM EDT |
Jimf, I didn't push it that far and you know it. I have said it myself that I wouldn't blame someone from doing something because there is really no other choice. The only thing about my "ideal" that I am defending here is a prioritization of freedom to practical benefit and convenience. This simply *does not* mean that you have to use Free Software or create a Free Software project or do anything else that you simply aren't able to do. What it implies instead is choosing Free Software where you actually ARE able to even if it means sacrificing a bit of short term benefit that a proprietary option might have given. Again, I appreciate what you guys are doing all in all. You apparently do contribute alot to Free Software and I didn't mean to put you down. We were discussing some more fundamental things that can lead certain people to certain ways of acting. My stance is that putting the goal and value of freedom higher will ultimately result in more contributions to Free Software, naturally, while being easily willing to compromise will result in less progress and even detribution from Free Software. Another problem I saw is that people who actually do contribute to Free Software alot seem to advocate the kind of philosophy that lessens the importance of the Free Software goal (which is actually freedom). Why do that? It's kind of contradicting? If you're doing that just to justify your own neccessary compromises then you're in futility. I mean, you don't need to justify it. You don't need to make compromise your philosophy just because you are sometimes forced to make it. Heads up! I'm not your enemy. :) Thank you |
| Libervis Jul 10, 2006 5:59 PM EDT |
Oh well Steve, I applaud you. Getting tired of arguing, and I think we're closing on understanding each other here. Our views don't appear to be too different. EDIT: Besides, enough has really been said for the general public to ponder and make up their own minds. I suppose I've spoken enough. :) Thank you |
| sbergman27 Jul 10, 2006 6:34 PM EDT |
Were we arguing? ;-) I'd say *more* than enough has been made available for public pondering. Take care, Steve |
| grouch Jul 10, 2006 7:04 PM EDT |
devnet: >"Opera 9 was available from 4-5 repos about 3 days after it was released. This "news" never hit the front pages of Lxer nor was it posted. Had I known that package announcements were considered front page "news" I might have posted those 4-5 distros so they could get some needed exposure right? That's my point of why this is silly...Ubuntu got a fat boost from this article which I still consider nothing more than mailing list traffic. Unless ALL Linux distros are given equal representation, I'll continue to consider this article silly and something that shouldn't have been posted to Lxer in the first place." 'Way back up the thread, I explained why I posted this article. It's an extremely short report and I would normally just delete it instead of posting. This one happened to contain some information I haven't seen before, related to a GNU/Linux distribution. (Scroll back through the Newswire and you will not find any article posted by me that is just about Opera). |
| Libervis Jul 10, 2006 7:14 PM EDT |
sbergman27: Well we were throwing some arguments so you could call it arguing that way, but we can settle with "discussion". :) Best regards Daniel |
| jdixon Jul 10, 2006 8:36 PM EDT |
Libervis: > What if it doesn't? :D By definition, if it doesn't meet my functional needs, I can't use it to do the things I want. Look, I use Slackware, and have since 1994 or so. It's been my primary desktop since shortly after Windows 98 came out. That should tell you something about how much I prefer free software. sbergman27: >I know the various mantras we chant. The only real pragmatic complaint I have with Windows is that it's a virus and spyware magnet. Other than that, and with the proper protections in place (AVG virus scanner, Zonealarm firewall, AdAware, Spybot, Firefox, and Thunderbird), it's good enough for most people to use. The days of being able to claim total superiority for Linux went away with Windows 2000. Is it as stable and secure as Linux? Not even close. But it is "good enough". The real reasons not to use Windows are the very reasons Libervis and wind0wsr3fund give. With Windows, it's Bill Gate's computer, not yours. With Linux, it's your computer. |
| grouch Jul 10, 2006 9:57 PM EDT |
jdixon: >"With Windows, it's Bill Gate's computer, not yours. With Linux, it's your computer." Looks like a very strong, pragmatic reason to avoid MS, to me. |
| wind0wsr3fund Jul 10, 2006 10:44 PM EDT |
"But the vast majority of people I run into in the community are in between, with beliefs that span both camps." That's what I call "free as in free-loader". A Free Software supporter would never show such a lack of conviction. Imagine for a moment, comparing the Free Software movement with ongoing struggle to end racism. Both are ethical issues so this is an excellent comparison. Would it be acceptable to discriminate only 5% of the day? Could you justify that 5% by claiming "Hey, I don't do it for the other 95% so it's alright!" Think about it. |
| sbergman27 Jul 11, 2006 4:29 AM EDT |
> Imagine for a moment, comparing the Free Software movement with ongoing struggle to end racism. Thanks for handing me that reductio ad absurdum. The quoted line above is where the arguments you have made in this thread fall to completely to pieces in the eyes of any sane person. Perspective, wind0wsr3fund. Perspective. |
| SFN Jul 11, 2006 4:35 AM EDT |
Quoting:Imagine for a moment, comparing the Free Software movement with ongoing struggle to end racism. In general, this whole discussion has been pretty silly in my opinion but this comment goes beyond that. Anybody who has ever been the victim of racism will tell you that comparing their struggle to the Free Software Movement is to belittle their plight. You really ought to be ashamed of yourself for that one. |
| sbergman27 Jul 11, 2006 5:30 AM EDT |
> Anybody who has ever been the victim of racism will tell you that comparing their struggle to the Free Software Movement is to belittle their plight. That is the heart of the disagreement, though. Is Free Software something that is good, worth striving for, and generally beneficial to humanity? Or is it a moral imperative? I believe the former deeply. I reject the latter as absurd. |
| SFN Jul 11, 2006 6:51 AM EDT |
I agree. (My comment was directed at wind0wsr3fund, btw. I'm not sure that was clear.) |
| Libervis Jul 11, 2006 7:52 AM EDT |
sbergman27; oh you have said it well with that last one, and I disagree with you. It is a moral and ethical imperative for me. I don't think it is the only thing that can be classified as such, and I don't even say it's the most important of the moral issues and causes, but that doesn't make it less of a moral and ethical issue. What else could I be saying when I was insisting on prioritizing freedom than that anyway? If it was just one of the many choices then you could say "it's just a fine and good cause worth supporting, if you wish.. If you don't wish to support it, its fine too" - well no it isn't fine! Feel free to disagree, but don't call it absurd just because you find yourself incapable of agreeing to that (or even understanding this view). I don't want to fuel a big discussion with this again, hence the acknowledgement of freedom to disagree above, but I just had to make my stance clear in respect to what you brought up in your last post. |
| jdixon Jul 11, 2006 8:10 AM EDT |
> Is Free Software something that is good, worth striving for, and generally beneficial to humanity? Or is it a moral imperative? I believe the former deeply. I reject the latter as absurd. Well, absurd might be too strong a word, but unreasonable at least. Obviously, Livervis and wind0wsr3fund don't agree with us. There are situations, such as voting machine software (where openness is a necessity), encryption software (where peoples lives may depend on the code), and censorship bypass software (ditto), where free software may be a moral imperative, but in the general case I would agree that it's not. > but that doesn't make it less of a moral and ethical issue. Livervis, there are lots of things which are moral and ethical issues which are not ethical and moral imperatives. I don't disagree with the former, only the latter. As noted earlier, perspective is important. When peoples lives and/or freedom depend on software, then free software may be an imperative. In normal circumstances, I don't think it is. You are free to disagree, of course, and I don't think anyone here thinks less of you for doing so. I think I've made my points more than well enough, so if no one minds :), I'll drop the discussion. |
| wind0wsr3fund Jul 11, 2006 8:59 AM EDT |
jdixon said: "When peoples lives and/or freedom depend on software, then free software may be an imperative" In case you haven't noticed, the year is 2006. Our lives do depend on software; as does our collective intellect. The only question in debate is to what extent. Regardless, it would be silly to invest resources into finding out the answer since we're not going back to pen & paper any time soon. In other words, this dependancy is only getting stronger and stronger with each passing day. Armed with this wisdom, I just read your comment again. While I still disagree with your choice to use the word "may", I can't think of a better word than "imperative". |
| devnet Jul 11, 2006 9:04 AM EDT |
Jimf:
Quoting:Read back thurgh the thread. wind0wsr3fund used his irational ranting and absoluteist retoric to the point that he turned off nearly everyone in the thread. He gave up the 'right' to an answer. So if I don't listen to the information the flight attendant gives at the beginning of the flight, I don't have the right to ask where the exits are when the plane makes an emergency landing? I don't think so. Just because he was considered rude doesn't remove rights from him. I thought he raised many valid points worth responding to. hkwint: Quoting:I can agree that it's a little strange to see this 'silly news' on a web page like LXer, and I would probably have deleted it. Grouch didn't, and he has his reasons for that. It's a good thing you didn't...censorship when there isn't vulgarity or intent to harm is a bad thing. Original intent of this post? It was to bring to light that package announcements aren't news I expect to see on the front page at Lxer. New technology? Yes...post it. XGL available would be something we could announce. A browsers new version? You bet. A Browser's new version available for a single distro? Nope. Of course, that's why we have editors here at Lxer.com right? They choose what hits the front page and what is newsworthy. The forum is provided so that we (readers) can comment on the news. So, my comments citing that this wasn't newsworthy should be a valid comment taken by the editors...I'm very glad you didn't wipe the thread out...it's valid info on the perspective of a longtime reader and supporter (as well as a longtime linux advocate). Had it been erased, I'd have cried foul quite loudly. |
| Libervis Jul 11, 2006 9:07 AM EDT |
Adding to what wind0wsr3fund said, DRM is making things even worse. Injecting DRM in a world whose culture is increasingly dependant on digital technology and hence software is a disaster. It seems to me that even if it may not seem to be at this point, it is becoming a moral imperative at an increasing rate. I think that only with Free Software we can properly fight DRM off, because a Free code can't be DRMed without somone having seen the DRM (dis)functionality code and removed it. But I agree to disagree, if necessary, and dropping this discussion since enough has been said indeed. We do at least seem to agree that it's an ethical issue. :) |
| wind0wsr3fund Jul 11, 2006 9:13 AM EDT |
Sbergman27, "The quoted line above is where the arguments you have made in this thread fall to completely to pieces in the eyes of any sane person. Perspective, wind0wsr3fund. Perspective." No, it is your inability to recongnize free software as an ethical movement which prevents you (and others) from seeing the truth in my words. From an ethical standpoint, there is absolutely no difference between the free software campaign and the drive to abolish racism. Both are fundementally about treating your neighbor with respect and decency. My guess is that I've struck a nerve by making this comparison because even the most pragmatically-driven Open Source supporter couldn't speak out in favor of discrimination. |
| tuxchick2 Jul 11, 2006 9:19 AM EDT |
"Both are fundementally about treating your neighbor with respect and decency." Maybe you could practice what you preach. Starting with putting an end to your endless complaining about what LXer publishes. Especially since you never ever contribute a thing yourself, but only complain. You never praise stories that meet your lofty standards, and if there aren't any I wonder why you hang around. You do nothing to contribute- you just sit back and take shots. In my book that discredits everything you say. |
| Libervis Jul 11, 2006 9:33 AM EDT |
Well said wind0wsr3fund, though it's good to note the criticism below by tuxchick2. tuxchick2: I think it doesn't necessarily discredit what he says. You may or may not be right about him not putting his words to action in real life if his argument and point is good then it's worth responding. Besides, he did take quite a few shots himself here for what he preaches already, didn't he? ;) Thanks |
| sbergman27 Jul 11, 2006 9:53 AM EDT |
I think we've reached the level of the axiom. By that I mean that in math you can argue theorems till the cows come home. You can prove theorems. You can find fallacies in the proofs of previously believed theorems. But you can't argue with the axioms. The axioms just are. They define that particular universe. And they are different for different logical systems. Euclidean geometry has its axioms. Hyperbolic geometry has slightly different ones. And within their particular geometry, they are immutable. The words 'agree' and 'disagree' have little real meaning when applied to the axioms of different logical systems. I think this thread has reached a similar level regarding our own "ethical axioms". Or, to be more succinct and probably a hell of a lot more clear: I think we're arguing religion. ;-) |
| wind0wsr3fund Jul 11, 2006 9:54 AM EDT |
tuxchick2, I have contributed a fair amount of both my professional and personal time advocating free software. In addition to my Windows Refund campaign, working with the New York GNU/Linux Scene and New Yorkers for Fair Use, I've given many speeches on the topic and feel confident that I am viewed as someone who is willing and helpful by those who know me. All this doesn't even touch what I've done professionally. Years ago, I threw my entire NT-administrator-based career to the wayside because I realized I couldn't live a lie by advocating free software only during "off hours". Despite the risks I took on that are associated with unemployment, I stuck to my guns and am happy to report that I now make a very nice living supporting *only* free software. In fact, my job title is "GNU/Linux Systems Administrator". You might want to do a better job of qualifying those who you are so quick to shoot down. As a member of the free software community, I have every right to hold LXer.com accountable. In fact, if you understood the issues involved, you would realize that it is, in fact, my obligation. You would also understand that I am treating you with more respect than you realize because I am hell bent on protecting your freedoms. We don't have to like each other *but* whether you know it or not, you deserve to have your freedoms 0-3 protected. You should be thanking me and everyone else associated with the FS movement. http://windowsrefund.info http://nyfairuse.org http://nylxs.com |
| tuxchick2 Jul 11, 2006 10:09 AM EDT |
"As a member of the free software community, I have every right to hold LXer.com accountable." Say what? That's a complete non-sequitur. Your other activities, however wonderful they may be, don't make your endless criticizing and complaining here any more palatable. |
| wind0wsr3fund Jul 11, 2006 10:13 AM EDT |
tuxchick2, Quite ironic when I consider how much you've contributed to this thread. It's been nothing but complaining and jumping on the bandwagon from your end. Maybe you should change your nick to tuxgroupie? |
| jimf Jul 11, 2006 10:24 AM EDT |
> I am hell bent on protecting your freedoms. We don't have to like each other *but* whether you know it or not, you deserve to have your freedoms 0-3 protected. >You should be thanking me and everyone else associated with the FS movement. Gee thank you Nanny.... or is that Massa? I'm also pretty sure that you 'don't' speak for 'everyone else associated with the FS movement. Way too much concern about controling, and, all to little concern for actual freedom from where I stand. |
| wind0wsr3fund Jul 11, 2006 10:26 AM EDT |
jimf, We're talking about freedoms 0-3. I guess you missed that part? |
| wind0wsr3fund Jul 11, 2006 10:34 AM EDT |
It's times like these when I really have to hand it to RMS. His ability to tolerate the same mindless resistance over and over again is simply amazing. The same misunderstandings, the same cop outs, the same boring excuses fueled from laziness and/or greed. Once in awhile though, logic prevails and a new ally is born. It could be happening right now in fact... |
| jimf Jul 11, 2006 10:34 AM EDT |
wind0wsr3fund, The only thing you've accomplished in this thread is to create adversaries. |
| wind0wsr3fund Jul 11, 2006 10:40 AM EDT |
tuxchick2, "Your other activities, however wonderful they may be, don't make your endless criticizing and complaining here any more palatable." Palatable.... interesting choice of wording that reflects the short sighted agenda of the OS community (and I use the word "community" VERY loosely). In response, I'll remind you that the affect of the medicine is far more important that its initial taste. |
| wind0wsr3fund Jul 11, 2006 10:41 AM EDT |
jimf, That's YOUR decision, not mine. |
| Libervis Jul 11, 2006 12:28 PM EDT |
Guys, think what you will but I'm with wind0wsr3fund on this. I may not agree with his style and I have my own ways of advocating Free Software, but his posts lately make more sense than yours. To be honest I think your posts are just mostly cop-outs, as wind0wsr3fund said. Jimf, I think the blame for creating any adversaries is starting to go both ways. Not everyone here has really shown enough of an open mind to what he was saying in the first place, and now continue riding that bandwagon. If you can't agree then at least resist the urge to downplay the one who still has something reasonable to say. He has just posted about his involvement in Free Software advocacy, sacrifices he made for the goal, and yet all you can do is keep banging the same old complaint against him. I don't necessarily agree with his stance on LXer and his style either, but I can separate that from other things he is saying and address them properly. You apparently can't. And I'm getting tired of running in circles with you guys. |
| jimf Jul 11, 2006 12:50 PM EDT |
> If you can't agree then at least resist the urge to downplay the one who still has something reasonable to say. I think that everyone here has already evaluated the information and come to their own conclusions. It's not like we don't have all the information, or, that we are incapable of understanding it. Continuing to hammer on it is not 'converting' anyone. At that point, it's 'not' reasonable. Just drop it. Come back to fight another day if you will. but, stop trying to shove it down people's throats. Honestly, If I were to select people to advance the cause of the GPL, that is the last technique I'd want to see used. Anyway, I'm out of it. |
| wind0wsr3fund Jul 11, 2006 1:11 PM EDT |
Libervis, I'd love to chat. Perhaps we can do something constructive together. If you're interested, I can be reached at akosmin AT windowsrefund.info |
| Libervis Jul 11, 2006 1:14 PM EDT |
I tried to get out quite a bit up there in the thread, but the continuing conversation and some responses prompted me to respond too.. That said I agree Jimf. I should be out too (and hopefully I wont have to respond again ;) ). |
| sbergman27 Jul 11, 2006 1:18 PM EDT |
Let's all try very hard not to say anything controversial. :-P (That's a little joke.) I guess it's good we got through 138 posts without invoking the 'N' word, though. -Steve |
| wind0wsr3fund Jul 11, 2006 1:29 PM EDT |
Novell? |
| Libervis Jul 11, 2006 1:30 PM EDT |
Why Novell? Hehe.. Btw, wind0wsr3fund: mail sent. :) |
| jimf Jul 11, 2006 1:33 PM EDT |
He just had to say the 'N' word ;-).... |
| wind0wsr3fund Jul 11, 2006 2:02 PM EDT |
Libervis, I've heard Jack Messman's pitch about OS and CS working so beatifully together many times. As a result, my impression of the the company is simply that they cater to (perhaps even depend on?) fence sitters. |
| Libervis Jul 11, 2006 2:45 PM EDT |
Well I think Novell wouldn't be the only company with that kind of attitude. These companies were mostly attracted to the whole "open source" business for their own good. The fact that it is at an increasingly good reputation for obvious reasons only helps them. Most of them probably wouldn't blink an eye if the process was vice versa (say if the world was all Free Software dominated and the proprietary software model was getting to be the next big thing). So it's nothing to wonder, and we vote by our own choices. If we don't approve of something Novell does, at least we have a choice of many other distros. Does it depend on the supposed fence sitters? Maybe. Probably. But as said, they're not the only ones. Ultimately it's up to us to dictate their behaviour and I think that in the world of Free Software that they have set their foot into, we have a much greater force behind us to pressure them: all the choice of alternative distros and companies we can switch to almost on a whim if we start disliking someone like Novell. In a proprietary world this is much harder because the lockin is harsher. |
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!