Rename article "My Love-Hate Relationship With Ubuntu"
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Bob_Robertson Dec 04, 2007 1:05 PM EDT |
Here's what I wrote in his comments section: ================ I can understand the animosity of some Linux advocates. So many _pointless_ arguments are based upon comparing only the manufacturers providing drivers to Windows, while the Linux developers have to do so much of the work without any help from the manufacturers at all. Having that Herculean effort slighted is… is… well, it’s not a nice thing. The Linux environment is not a democracy. There is no “vote” taken and everyone is stuck with the result. There is no “CTO”, no “Executive Committee”, no “Board of Directors”. It is anarchy in its most beneficial sense: “an-” being without, “archy” being rulers. But there _ARE_ rules. The most basic rule is that, if you’re not compatible, no one will use your product. No, you can’t drag-and-drop from File Roller into Nautilus. That’s one of the reasons I don’t use File Roller or Nautilus. I do use Konqueror and Karchiver. Guess what: You can view directories and files on Windows with Netscape/Firefox, but you can’t drag and drop in/out of there either. Is that the fault of Windows? So why claim that “Linux” doesn’t have that function? On “basic system” functionality, such as sound. I use ALSA and all the OSS applications work just fine. I am not forced into choosing one or the other, any more than I am restricted in using only QT _or_ GTK applications. GTK applications run just fine, and interact just fine, with QT apps in both the KDE and GNOME “desktop” environments, as well as every other window manager that exists. Anarchy. Rules without rulers. Those rules are achieved by consensus rather than by force, and that makes all the difference. The fact that there is no Steve sitting on top saying how the basic system is to look or feel is why the same code-base runs on everything from a wristwatch to the vast majority of the top 500 supercomputers in the world. Including my Laptop, my PDA, and my router. Are their specific applications which I can say “Why I hate xxx”? Indeed! But is that the fault of Linux? No. It is the fault of those applications. How about renaming this article to something closer to what the article says, like “My Love-Hate Relationship With Ubuntu”? I’ll match it with an article called, “Why I Use Debian And Not Ubuntu”. |
| ColonelPanik Dec 04, 2007 1:54 PM EDT |
B_R Great responce. Perfect even. Bob_R said: > Anarchy. Rules without rulers. Those rules are achieved by consensus rather than by force, and that makes all the difference. < Would that all of life be like that. |
| Bob_Robertson Dec 05, 2007 3:31 AM EDT |
> Would that all of life be like that. http://www.mises.org/mp3/MU2004/Long2.mp3 |
| ColonelPanik Dec 05, 2007 4:17 AM EDT |
Bob, that link isn't working. Went to mises.org. Cool, but what were you pointing to? |
| Bob_Robertson Dec 05, 2007 4:53 AM EDT |
Just "Save link as...". It's a wonderful informal talk which I would entitle, "answers to objections to anarchy". It's gust a link directly to an mp3 file, I get a "Would you like to save as a file, or open in XMMS?" dialog. |
| hkwint Dec 05, 2007 2:24 PM EDT |
While the response is good in my opinion, one remark: Sadly, Linus himself is sometimes 'tempted' to sit on top of things and direct how things should go. OK, people are harassing him without stopping till they can note some considerable remarks and exaggerate the story to make it seem like there's a big argument going on, but still he makes some 'unpolitical' remarks some now and then. Remember his GNOME-remarks, his unwillingness to put CK-patches with RDSL-scheduler in the main kernel tree, or his remarks that if he says so, LSM goes into mainline, no matter what anybody else says. Now, I know Bob, you are far better up to date with the meaning of anarchy than I am, so I resorted to using WP. It says, amongst others: 'A theoretical state in which there is no governing body...' Well, that doesn't go for Linux. Far more than it goes for example for OpenBSD, but Linus is still acting like the leader, and it's still Linus who decides what goes into the main kernel tree and what not. That's not a problem, people can fork it at any time, but still I can't consider Linux as an anarchy. |
| ColonelPanik Dec 05, 2007 3:13 PM EDT |
More like chaos? Anarchy without politics. Fun Link: http://www.tampabays10.com/news/watercooler/article.aspx?sto... |
| dinotrac Dec 06, 2007 5:03 AM EDT |
> Anarchy without politics. I presume that you are saying anarchy without politics = chaos? GIven that Bob relies on the notion of rule by consensus and without force, politics would seem to be the single most important aspect of anarchy. |
| ColonelPanik Dec 06, 2007 5:26 AM EDT |
dino,,,, B_R said that anarchy meant "without rulers"
Politics, any I have seen, is all about rulers. So far the anarchy
movements have been rife with rulers. But their music was cool. Bob's stuff about people doing the right thing by consensus is what we need. Community for a common goal. Er, Linux? The clash of diverse opinions? Throw all the ideas in a hat and then pull them out one at a time and discuss. When every opinion has been looked at, pick the best, get more opinions, and discuss them. Passion allowed, you bet. But you have to treat others with the respect you feel you deserve. How about people being elected to a "function" and not to a position? That goes into the hat. |
| hkwint Dec 06, 2007 6:31 AM EDT |
Quoting:Throw all the ideas in a hat and then pull them out one at a time and discuss. When every opinion has been looked at, pick the best, get more opinions, and discuss them. Ain't that exactly the way democracy ought to work? |
| ColonelPanik Dec 06, 2007 6:33 AM EDT |
Yep |
| ColonelPanik Dec 06, 2007 9:12 AM EDT |
You want Ubuntu? Check out E-bay:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ACERS-NEW-OPERATING-SYSTEM-FOR-DESKTOPS-... Scroll through to see the laughs |
| tuxchick Dec 06, 2007 9:34 AM EDT |
Quoting: GET THE NEW "ACER AND DELL" OPERATING SYSTEM er...speechless! |
| Bob_Robertson Dec 06, 2007 10:08 AM EDT |
Well, Linus is himself a benevolent dictator. In the main tree, what goes in is what he _says_ goes in, because it's his. The essence of private property. Every project makes that decision for themselves. Where that final decision is made by an individual, it's a dictatorship. Some use politics, some use consensus, some, like Debian, have a series of small teams that decide for themselves when their parts of the whole are done and "Stable" is released only when unanimity has been achieved. I love unanimity. F/OSS operates over-all on unanimity, since if you don't like someone else's decision there is no requirement what so ever that you use their product. Unanimity means that people interact completely without coercion. I've been reminded several times that "politics" isn't about coercion, technically it's just a method of decision making. Groups of people utilize "politics", just because that is what people do. So "democracy" turns out to be just another decision making process too, where votes are taken and the choice that achieves some arbitrary quantity (50%, 75%, whatever) is what is chosen. Consensus would seem to me to be a form of democracy, but without a formal "you _must_ do it the way the majority does it" element. I leave it as an exercise to the reader to decide if it has a scaling problem because of that informality. I think in practice it does not, while in theory it certainly could. Anarchy. If I may fall back on the definition Murray Rothbard and the other formal anarchists have used (including the mp3 file I pointed to elsewhere)... Anarchy is where there is no monopoly with the legitimate power of coercion. Edit: Stuff about non-Anarchy removed for TOS violation, and my effort, really, to make this a discussion of group decision making. --------------------------- Ubuntu. Hmmm. I think that the problems of Ubuntu are caused by trying to make a snapshot of Debian Unstable/Testing/Stable into something "Stable" on a schedule determined before-hand. The Debian release team has to deal with all the same problems, but takes much longer than Ubuntu allows themselves for resolution. It's not that it cannot be done, just that anyone who has seen the epic contortions of the Debian Stable release cannot rationally expect to do it twice a year without introducing some chaos into what they really want to be their "stable". |
| hkwint Dec 06, 2007 3:15 PM EDT |
After reading Wikipedia, I found out that 'democracy' doesn't exist with a single definition, so therefore I have to be more specific, and refer to 'representative democracy', and how they told me at the primary school what it intended: It's not possible for over millions of people to discuss stuff in some building and reach a consensus, or vote (ok, the latter may be possible today, but it's still difficult). Therefore, we chose some wise people we trust, and they are ought to decide what's best for everybody. Also, unlike the 'normal people', they _do_ have the time to research what's best and what the consequences are. Voting with a majority only ought to happen when a consensus can't be reached. That's how my teacher told it when I first was explained what the idea of democracy is (must have been 10 or so then), though I knew the term earlier probably. That theoretical 'representative democracy' is in sharp contrast with 'everyday' democracy in this world, where the people usually don't vote for wise persons, and money plays a big role. |
| jdixon Dec 06, 2007 3:44 PM EDT |
> ...where the people usually don't vote for wise persons, "In the old days (a custom laid aside with breeches and cocked hats) the people sent their wisest men to make the public laws." The full poem can be found at http://www.web-books.com/classics/Poetry/anthology/Whittier/... |
| jezuch Dec 07, 2007 1:54 AM EDT |
One of rather controversial Polish conservatist politicians, Janusz Korwin Mikke, said something like "It's abvious that democracy can't work when *all* people are allowed to vote; because which people are more common among them - wise people or stupid people?" |
| jdixon Dec 07, 2007 2:41 AM EDT |
> "It's abvious that democracy can't work when *all* people are allowed to vote;... Robert A. Heinlein tended to agree. He felt that voting should be an earned privilege, not a right. |
| ColonelPanik Dec 07, 2007 4:51 AM EDT |
What a can of worms that would be. What would be the criterion? Education Military service Home ownership Sex IQ test Fashion and hair style Ethnicity Religion And who would be the gate keepers? Oh yeah, the "wise men" but no women? Who picks the people who pick the ones who choose the ones that decide who votes and who revolts? Can I get paid to vote? Only Linux users may vote! |
| Bob_Robertson Dec 07, 2007 6:12 AM EDT |
> and refer to 'representative democracy', and how they told me at the primary school what it intended:... The dictator is always wise. God appoints the King to rule. Mao overthrew great powers and united his country. Fidel has withstood the imperialist designs of the American government. Etc, etc etc. The council is always wise. Learned men, together to solve the problems of the community. The representatives are always wise. Accomplished men sent by their communities to weld together a coherent whole out of a large, diverse nation. Balderdash. It's all about some small group of people living well off taxes extracted at knife/sword/gun point from the masses. This is the real class struggle, those who live through productive means vs. those who live through political means. No one votes on what I'm going to have for breakfast. No one took a poll to decide what colour my house would get painted. My company builds a building without having representatives of the various communities come together to decide on an appropriate design, height or style. Sadly, the excuse of "public goods" has been created to justify extracting a living from others. Roads, railroads, canals, subways, electrical distribution, water supplies, all were built by private individuals before government took them over and made them a "public good", and then utilized their propaganda machines to make sure everyone thought only government could provide them. Consensus, voting, whatever, work just fine when the organization is cooperative. It is the use of coercion which allows corruption to take hold. I am an "anarchist" because I believe in rules without rulers. It works for me, day in and day out, in everything I do voluntarily. Government merely gets in the way. RAH was very much correct. Problems come about with mass sufferage, because most people will vote for that which gives them the most direct benefit with no thought to the cost to everyone else. Just a little bit of reading will discover this great quote: Sir Alex Fraser Tytler, 18th century Scottish jurist and historian: “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. “The average age of the world's great civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependency; from dependency back again to bondage.” That's not to say that I think RAH created (in Starship Troopers, for those who do not recognize the reference) an "ideal" situation with his government franchise available only to former military. No more than the original franchise of the American republic, which required property ownership and a Y chromosome in order to vote. It merely shifts the franchise to a group with _less_ reason to want government intruding in their own lives. But it still intrudes. |
| ColonelPanik Dec 07, 2007 7:18 AM EDT |
Damn, wish I said that! Bob_Robertson RULES! |
| tuxchick Dec 07, 2007 7:34 AM EDT |
He rules in getting away with TOS violations and hijacking practically every thread he comments in. It's making LXer less fun for me. Why don't you hardheads who have to inject your personal beliefs, which believe me by now EVERYONE knows ten times over, go found your own forum? |
| Bob_Robertson Dec 07, 2007 7:40 AM EDT |
Only by consensus. :^) Thank you. You're too kind. |
| tuxchick Dec 07, 2007 7:52 AM EDT |
Nothing ruins a forum or mailing list faster than politics and religion. Because it always degenerates into nobody listening to anyone else, and no one ever changes their mind based on what anyone else is trying to ram into their heads. It's boring and useless, and it chases away the interesting people. I respectfully request that LXerers either respect the TOS, and that it be enforced, or just do away with it entirely. Or perhaps create a designated forum for this stuff. Just get it out of the actual discussions that are about actual interesting topics. |
| ColonelPanik Dec 07, 2007 8:26 AM EDT |
This off topic stuff is fun but TC is right. Could we have an non Linux place here? |
| Bob_Robertson Dec 07, 2007 9:48 AM EDT |
Gee, I thought the subject of what various decision making processes consist of and what they're called came up naturally. Sad, TC, if I offend you. I tried, really I did, I went back to the top of this thread and checked! It was entirely Linux related! |
| ColonelPanik Dec 07, 2007 2:27 PM EDT |
Bob Bob Bob, we did digress, badly. Far afield, over the horizon even. Its congenital with me but there is no excuse for the rest of you! All Linux all the time! |
| tuxchick Dec 07, 2007 3:37 PM EDT |
Political (and religious) debates are like porn- no one is ever more than a couple of clicks away from more than they can ever read in a hundred lifetimes. But good Linux and tech discussions are rare in this vast wasteland of the Internet. That's one of the things that sets LXer apart. If I'm the only one who feels this way, well then I'm the odd one out, and that's the way it is. |
| Abe Dec 07, 2007 5:31 PM EDT |
Quoting:If I'm the only one who feels this way,...No your are not alone. Although I enjoy discussing religion and politics, I try very hard not to participate online. I prefer to engage in person where physical expressions are visible. Online, presenting where I stand on issues is enough. Normally, that doesn't take much verbiage. |
| NoDough Dec 07, 2007 7:40 PM EDT |
>> Although I enjoy discussing religion and politics, I try very hard not to participate online. I prefer to engage in person where physical expressions are visible. Yeah. It's fun to see the look on their face when you pull a gun on them. |
| Bob_Robertson Dec 08, 2007 7:24 AM EDT |
All that said, TC is indeed correct. The "group decision making" did get lost in the chaff. I will do better. |
| montezuma Dec 08, 2007 7:43 AM EDT |
I agree with TC. There is a rather odd political mix in the linux community: Leftists (e.g. RMS) and Libertarians (e.g ESR) and others. Given this diversity politics can easily derail intelligent discussion. |
| hkwint Dec 08, 2007 8:49 AM EDT |
No TC, you're not alone. Sometimes I am a bit carried away, it starts out as comments on the way of decision making in open source communities and it usually ends at politics. Shame on me! |
| NoDough Dec 08, 2007 9:45 AM EDT |
>> There is a rather odd political mix in the linux community: Leftists (e.g. RMS) and Libertarians (e.g ESR) and others. I fall into the 'others' category. What this should tell you is that the tenets of FOSS are in no way tied to any one political philosophy. They are, more or less, universal. When we attempt to bind FOSS to a political group, or any other exclusionary group, we are doing it and the community an incredible disservice. "FOSS is leftist, conservatives need not apply." "FOSS is American, non-Americans need not apply." "FOSS is [your exclusionary group here], others need not apply." What a bunch of hooey. FOSS is a superior way of developing software that benefits everyone except monopolists. That is the only exclusion that I can logically apply to it. |
| montezuma Dec 08, 2007 10:57 AM EDT |
> I fall into the 'others' category. What this should tell you is that the tenets of FOSS are in no way tied to any one political philosophy. They are, more or less, universal. True enough. FOSS does of course have political implications since it is a powerful form of social organization. This makes it attractive to those with political leanings of various kinds. I guess a potentially useful analogy is to scientific research which is not particularly politically (i.e. left-right) aligned but does often atttract political controversy. |
| Abe Dec 08, 2007 2:31 PM EDT |
Quoting:Yeah. It's fun to see the look on their face when you pull a gun on them.You don't have to worry about that NoDough, I don't own a gun. :) |
| NoDough Dec 08, 2007 7:34 PM EDT |
>> You don't have to worry about that NoDough, I don't own a gun. :) Really? Want to borrow one of mine? |
| tracyanne Dec 08, 2007 8:13 PM EDT |
Quoting:"It's abvious that democracy can't work when *all* people are allowed to vote; In Australia ALL people (of voting age) MUST vote, or be prosecuted for not doing so. |
| Abe Dec 09, 2007 7:53 AM EDT |
Quoting:Really? Want to borrow one of mine?I said I don't own one, not I don't have access to one. :) |
| hkwint Dec 09, 2007 2:50 PM EDT |
Quoting:"It's abvious that democracy can't work when *all* people are allowed to vote; Same for Belgium, and see the result where democracy indeed doesn't work: About 6 months without government now (and still Bob didn't move there???) |
| hkwint Dec 09, 2007 2:52 PM EDT |
Quoting:>> There is a rather odd political mix in the linux community: Leftists (e.g. RMS) and Libertarians (e.g ESR) and others. If I don't want to be associated with ugly haircut - Americans like RMS or gunlovers like ESR, does that mean I'm in the others group? Serious though, please keep in mind 90% of the world doesn't live in the US, and the above means nothing to them! |
| Bob_Robertson Dec 09, 2007 3:08 PM EDT |
> Belgium, and see the result where democracy indeed doesn't work: About 6 months without government now (and still Bob didn't move there???) Seems to me that it's working perfectly. The Belgians don't want a government, so they don't have one. :^) Ok, if I may one more aspersion between F/OSS and "politics": F/OSS encompasses every different form of decision making, so it's perfectly natural that many different "political" philosophies will find a way to get involved. Such a melting pot makes it inevitable that there will be clashes. Luckily, those clashes do not lead to violence. :^) > Serious though, please keep in mind 90% of the world doesn't live in the US, and the above means nothing to them! Oh but it does! Have you ever seen the gun market of Pakistan? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9xf62PKC5M Neither the Socialism of RMS or the Militarism of ESR are unique to America. |
| hkwint Dec 09, 2007 3:21 PM EDT |
While tempting, I think I better can try to give a good example and stop talking politics. Nonetheless, I believe an off-topic forum on LXer would be welcome, so we can 'chroot' TOS-violating threads to the off-topic garbage-bin (just because I like the politic discussions, that'd be). Seperating philosophical and technical issues would be a good thing for LXer in my opinion. |
| hkwint Dec 09, 2007 3:21 PM EDT |
(Darn, that's twice!) |
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!