If all you want is "software that doesn't suck" why are you getting involved in a discussion about freedom?
My freedom does not interfere with your non-suckage, thankfully.
So, what is your point? Is it "Please be quiet I don't want to hear your philosophising"? Then stop listening. No-one is making you listen to Stallman, or any other free software advocates.
However, the attitude that comes from those like you who don't-give-a-damn about freedom, does interfere with those who do.
OK, you really are older than me. I never graduated from university and I've never measured my IQ, but I can tell you I am 28 with no children and I work in IT, funnily enough. My girlfriend owns the apartment where I live.
I don't think that anyone who disagrees with me is not smart. I tried to have a debate with you and I just got a verbose 'I disagree' as a response - I was hoping for reasoned discussion.
Now we've ascertained your credentials as someone with the potential for adult debate, perhaps you'd like to respond to my original criticisms of anarchist thought:
What do you do with those who don't want to play along?
How do you prevent individual agreements becoming group agreements becoming government?
What evidence is there that government is anything other than an evolutionary response to threats to survival?
While I agree that many people, especially anarchists, are capable of adult behaviour, the evidence of my eyes shows that it is not the majority. I don't think that the world is an 'awful, awful place', I am just aware that there are many people who see greed as the principal moral imperative, and I would not like to share a world of mob rule with them.
I take Kropotkin's point that governments usurp the people's power to co-operate. However, if people are fit for the responsiblity of moral judgement anarchists would propose, why are they incapable of seeing past government as the 'purveyor of morals'? I stand by my point: Mankind is not highly evolved enough to do without some form of central control.
Lot's of proprietary applications for our nice Free system?
Why exactly do you use Free Software beefstu01? Do you have a reason? If you don't have a reason, besides it idling away your time pleasantly, then why bother submitting posts to a discussion? If you don't have a philosophy, then what exactly do you have to say?
It's not all about Market Share because it is not a Business.
RMS may well agree with your points, but ultimately what he is saying is, "What use is a printer without a driver that works properly?"
Because the only way he could fix it would be to have the source.
Stallman's freedoms are actually the ultimate pragmatisms - the freedom to get things done when others no longer want to do it, the freedom to take the fruits of someone elses labour and build upon it, while retaining those freedoms for everyone else.
However, his idiology is cotradictory to his goal. he says that he wants freedom for software, however, in his thinking freedom means that everyone must use his modle. that is a contradiction not hypocracy.
You fail to see that his model is freedom. There is no contradiction. Understand this.
His model ensures the freedom of the recipients of sofrware, defending against an artificial restriction on freedom created by copyright law.
Free people who make free contracts don't need a gov't to enforce that contract, that's what arbitrators, agreed upon by both parties are for.
But listen to yourself; you are describing a primitive form of government!
Hierarchies are not 'an evolutionary response to threats to survival' and humans are not apes or ants.
If not an evolutionary response then what? Do you think hierarchies are something other than the result of evolution in other animals? Granted, humans are in a league of their own when it comes to technology and language, but to believe that social structures (leaders, group behaviour) which have existed since before recorded history are somehow creations of human free will is, quite frankly, naive.
I don't need a frontal lobotomy (or a bottle in fronta me) to stop me from initiating force against other people. I also don't need a gov't to take care of any fool who initiates force against me--I can take care of fools myself.
Maybe you don't need a lobotomy to fit into your utopian scheme but what about everybody else on the planet you doesn't want to go along with you?
I can't cover every point in depth (books have been written), but anarchy as a philosophy, and a way of life, is not as simple, or simplistic, as most people think it is.
Oh, sorry, some clever person who knows how to dress up nonsense in impenetrable swathes of dense text said it in book. Ah. Must be right then,
Look, I desire freedom as much as the next man. I once broke down in tears when I was ten years old because I couldn't cope with some 'government' taking away my 'rights' with all their rules. But the fact is, government is simply people organising themselves, so they can do bigger projects more efficiently. Yes, it gets out of hand. Yes, it infringes upon individual liberty. But the answer is not 'no government' because it's always going to form spontaneously.
If everyone was an automaton, they could all be programmed to behave nicely in your government-free setup. But they are not. Some are greedy. Some are just plain sick, or evil. Some are opportunists who like to take advantage. Mankind is not highly evolved enough to do without some form of central control.
I don't live in the US; I'm not talking about the US constitution and I'm not talking about the activities of your Office of Homeland Security.
Grown-ups create hierarchies because they are an evolutionary response to threats to survival. Look at animals in the wild. Look at apes, look at ants. They all have hierarchies. We just take it to an extreme.
You are right, getting to (stable) anarchism would take a fundamental change in the way people think. So fundamental I don't think it's possible.
In an anarchy, are you going to somehow prevent people making their own hierarchies and agreements? Start small if you like, let's say a group of people in business make agreements not to sell on each others patch. They will do this because it makes sense. If someone contravenes this agreement there will have to be some kind of remedy.
Think a little bigger and suddenly - Oh look, government.
Which is my point. We already live in an anarchy, albeit a self-organised one. In the anarchy that you would like to see, everyone is nice and agrees not to 'use force against anyone else' (your so-called fundamental no-no for anarchists). This isn't going to happen unless you give everyone a frontal lobotomy (which contravenes your non-violence rule).
To get back to the topic, Stallman et al want everyone to use the GPL because it circumvents an artificial protection provided by copyright. This is not 'using power against other people', it's more like a martial art, using your opponents force against them. To do that, your opponent has to make an attack. Therefore it's self-defence.
Keep in mind, if their was no copyright law for software, there probably wouldn't be a need for a GPL in the first place.
So they say. However, perhaps it would just make software companies hold onto their source code even more tightly, implement serious copy prevention mechanisms (firmware?), hike support costs, etc....
Anarchism, as a mode of thought, simply expects people to be grown-ups.
I would contend that it also encourages people to be grown-ups.
The problem is that grown-ups have a tendency to organise things - to create hierarchies. My fear is that anarchism would lead inevitably to government.
Alternatively you could consider that we already live in an anarchy.
But why take my word for it (or anyone else's) - download, compile, install, stress test, use.
If you don't have a test machine - wait a while, read the mailing list, see if anyone reports bad uptime / errors which affect you.
If you're so worried about stability, I don't see any other real option for you. Certainly, it seems naive to consider an 'official' designation of 'stable' sufficient to jump in with both feet. Either test it yourself, or read other peoples reports - there's plenty of them.
My experience? I have had no trouble with the 2.4 series, except for VM probs in 2.4.9 which brought my desktop machine to a short lived pause once or twice. I installed 2.4.13 last night and am hoping Andrea's VM will cure this.
I go home, get drunk and beat up the wife / dog, though I don't recommend it.
But seriously. What does a failure at work mean? At the end of the day, the responsibility is yours, and the only reasonable course of action is to change whatever caused the failure and reap the rewards. Be it changing working practices, learning something new, or getting a new job, whatever is necessary.
Short term pick-me-up? Do something you are good at that's fun - play a round of quake, go for a fast cycle run, go watch a feel good film (Amelie was good).
Slashdot Mirror
Please see my response to Glytch, above.
If all you want is "software that doesn't suck" why are you getting involved in a discussion about freedom?
My freedom does not interfere with your non-suckage, thankfully.
So, what is your point? Is it "Please be quiet I don't want to hear your philosophising"? Then stop listening. No-one is making you listen to Stallman, or any other free software advocates.
However, the attitude that comes from those like you who don't-give-a-damn about freedom, does interfere with those who do.
Hmmm, yes I guess we don't disagree too much really :-)
Sorry I got a bit unreasonable earlier; I was actually too drunk to respond properly when I wrote the Grow Up comment...
Best wishes.
OK, you really are older than me. I never graduated from university and I've never measured my IQ, but I can tell you I am 28 with no children and I work in IT, funnily enough. My girlfriend owns the apartment where I live.
I don't think that anyone who disagrees with me is not smart. I tried to have a debate with you and I just got a verbose 'I disagree' as a response - I was hoping for reasoned discussion.
Now we've ascertained your credentials as someone with the potential for adult debate, perhaps you'd like to respond to my original criticisms of anarchist thought:
What do you do with those who don't want to play along?
How do you prevent individual agreements becoming group agreements becoming government?
What evidence is there that government is anything other than an evolutionary response to threats to survival?
While I agree that many people, especially anarchists, are capable of adult behaviour, the evidence of my eyes shows that it is not the majority. I don't think that the world is an 'awful, awful place', I am just aware that there are many people who see greed as the principal moral imperative, and I would not like to share a world of mob rule with them.
I take Kropotkin's point that governments usurp the people's power to co-operate. However, if people are fit for the responsiblity of moral judgement anarchists would propose, why are they incapable of seeing past government as the 'purveyor of morals'? I stand by my point: Mankind is not highly evolved enough to do without some form of central control.
Really. So, how old are you? If you really are older then me, why is your mental age half my physical age?
IANAL. Without copyright law, would people 'selling their rights away' amount to contract law?
Any lawyers?
BAM!, there you go.
There you go with what?
Lot's of proprietary applications for our nice Free system?
Why exactly do you use Free Software beefstu01? Do you have a reason? If you don't have a reason, besides it idling away your time pleasantly, then why bother submitting posts to a discussion? If you don't have a philosophy, then what exactly do you have to say?
It's not all about Market Share because it is not a Business.
RMS may well agree with your points, but ultimately what he is saying is, "What use is a printer without a driver that works properly?"
Because the only way he could fix it would be to have the source.
Stallman's freedoms are actually the ultimate pragmatisms - the freedom to get things done when others no longer want to do it, the freedom to take the fruits of someone elses labour and build upon it, while retaining those freedoms for everyone else.
However, his idiology is cotradictory to his goal. he says that he wants freedom for software, however, in his thinking freedom means that everyone must use his modle. that is a contradiction not hypocracy.
You fail to see that his model is freedom. There is no contradiction. Understand this.
His model ensures the freedom of the recipients of sofrware, defending against an artificial restriction on freedom created by copyright law.
Also, your typing
So you're still psychotic.
So your still psychotic then.
No, I have a karma of 50+ so I post at +2.
You really should read and think before you reply. I assume you are a teenager.
Grow. Up.
So.. you're the craftsman and bug1 is the artist.
And I wouldn't call taking a shit 'craft'... in any circumstance
people are inherently bad and will take everything from you if you give them the slightest opening.
Correction, SOME people are inherently bad... enough to make life pretty difficult but certainly not the majority.
That's a very twisted world view you've got.
he's now more interested in advocating the GPL as a political statement than as a practical tool
Any device which affects people's lives IS a political statement. Live with it.
Free people who make free contracts don't need a gov't to enforce that contract, that's what arbitrators, agreed upon by both parties are for.
But listen to yourself; you are describing a primitive form of government!
Hierarchies are not 'an evolutionary response to threats to survival' and humans are not apes or ants.
If not an evolutionary response then what? Do you think hierarchies are something other than the result of evolution in other animals? Granted, humans are in a league of their own when it comes to technology and language, but to believe that social structures (leaders, group behaviour) which have existed since before recorded history are somehow creations of human free will is, quite frankly, naive.
I don't need a frontal lobotomy (or a bottle in fronta me) to stop me from initiating force against other people. I also don't need a gov't to take care of any fool who initiates force against me--I can take care of fools myself.
Maybe you don't need a lobotomy to fit into your utopian scheme but what about everybody else on the planet you doesn't want to go along with you?
I can't cover every point in depth (books have been written), but anarchy as a philosophy, and a way of life, is not as simple, or simplistic, as most people think it is.
Oh, sorry, some clever person who knows how to dress up nonsense in impenetrable swathes of dense text said it in book. Ah. Must be right then,
Look, I desire freedom as much as the next man. I once broke down in tears when I was ten years old because I couldn't cope with some 'government' taking away my 'rights' with all their rules. But the fact is, government is simply people organising themselves, so they can do bigger projects more efficiently. Yes, it gets out of hand. Yes, it infringes upon individual liberty. But the answer is not 'no government' because it's always going to form spontaneously.
If everyone was an automaton, they could all be programmed to behave nicely in your government-free setup. But they are not. Some are greedy. Some are just plain sick, or evil. Some are opportunists who like to take advantage. Mankind is not highly evolved enough to do without some form of central control.
Yes, AC, it was a dumb reply because it was meant in humour - a sense of which you clearly lack.
I'm not trolling, you just misunderstand me.
I don't live in the US; I'm not talking about the US constitution and I'm not talking about the activities of your Office of Homeland Security.
Grown-ups create hierarchies because they are an evolutionary response to threats to survival. Look at animals in the wild. Look at apes, look at ants. They all have hierarchies. We just take it to an extreme.
You are right, getting to (stable) anarchism would take a fundamental change in the way people think. So fundamental I don't think it's possible.
In an anarchy, are you going to somehow prevent people making their own hierarchies and agreements? Start small if you like, let's say a group of people in business make agreements not to sell on each others patch. They will do this because it makes sense. If someone contravenes this agreement there will have to be some kind of remedy.
Think a little bigger and suddenly - Oh look, government.
Which is my point. We already live in an anarchy, albeit a self-organised one. In the anarchy that you would like to see, everyone is nice and agrees not to 'use force against anyone else' (your so-called fundamental no-no for anarchists). This isn't going to happen unless you give everyone a frontal lobotomy (which contravenes your non-violence rule).
To get back to the topic, Stallman et al want everyone to use the GPL because it circumvents an artificial protection provided by copyright. This is not 'using power against other people', it's more like a martial art, using your opponents force against them. To do that, your opponent has to make an attack. Therefore it's self-defence.
Keep in mind, if their was no copyright law for software, there probably wouldn't be a need for a GPL in the first place.
So they say. However, perhaps it would just make software companies hold onto their source code even more tightly, implement serious copy prevention mechanisms (firmware?), hike support costs, etc....
What we need is a ban on the compiler...
Anarchism, as a mode of thought, simply expects people to be grown-ups.
I would contend that it also encourages people to be grown-ups.
The problem is that grown-ups have a tendency to organise things - to create hierarchies. My fear is that anarchism would lead inevitably to government.
Alternatively you could consider that we already live in an anarchy.
It's probably stable.
But why take my word for it (or anyone else's) - download, compile, install, stress test, use.
If you don't have a test machine - wait a while, read the mailing list, see if anyone reports bad uptime / errors which affect you.
If you're so worried about stability, I don't see any other real option for you. Certainly, it seems naive to consider an 'official' designation of 'stable' sufficient to jump in with both feet. Either test it yourself, or read other peoples reports - there's plenty of them.
My experience? I have had no trouble with the 2.4 series, except for VM probs in 2.4.9 which brought my desktop machine to a short lived pause once or twice. I installed 2.4.13 last night and am hoping Andrea's VM will cure this.
I go home, get drunk and beat up the wife / dog, though I don't recommend it.
But seriously. What does a failure at work mean? At the end of the day, the responsibility is yours, and the only reasonable course of action is to change whatever caused the failure and reap the rewards. Be it changing working practices, learning something new, or getting a new job, whatever is necessary.
Short term pick-me-up? Do something you are good at that's fun - play a round of quake, go for a fast cycle run, go watch a feel good film (Amelie was good).
Puhleez, Redhat have already donated all their software to your ungrateful ass.
Great, then wine can faithfully reproduce all those windows inovations like the blue screen of death and the paperclip. Thanks.