The fact is you can't make a business model based around the current GPL version because once you switch to GPL software you become the bitch of the FSF. What is to say the FSF will not add other restrictions on the software you use?
Exactly. AMEN. Amen and amen, a thousand times amen. I have scarcely ever seen it stated more clearly.
FSF cultists, take note. I am aware that a war is currently being waged for people's minds, with the stakes being whether or not each individual who uses open source will recognise the truth and rid themselves of the iron fist of Richard Stallman. Despite all of the derision and abuse you pile upon me and those others of us here who continue to attempt to show people that which you are determined to prevent them from seeing, every single time I see a post from someone like this, indicating that yet one more person has come to understand, it is all made worth it.
Ego denuntio atqui sustento bellum defigo vos, Richard Stallman.
I don't advocate open source being outlawed at all. What I advocate is the erradication of what I percieve as an authoritarian, Marxist cult. (the FSF)
The single main reason why I advocate that is because I believe that open source under other licenses actually stands to experience much greater levels of adoption than if the FSF continues to exist, primarily because the FSF advocates (and is itself the source of) an ideology which causes alienation, conflict, and division.
Some time after the introduction of GPL v3, Novell might end up as the only company in the Linux distribution business that is not permitted to distribute kernel 2.6.xx in any form.
I sincerely hope so. If the FSF are mad enough to start a GPL blacklist, it'll be the beginning of the end of both credibility and relevance for them.
I'm really looking forward to when the FSF starts banning people they don't like from using GPL licensed software, because then there will finally be a tangible example to everyone who's watching of just how free Stallman's definition of freedom really is. It's an important step towards the FSF destroying itself.
It is funny to go on about how we might be a Stallman-bot
You are a Stallmanite drone, although the one thing I give you some credit for is your ability to take in absolutely any argument that you are faced with and somehow re-interpret it (at least in your own head) so that it still comes out conforming with your programming and paints Stallman as a saviour. For most people afflicted with the degree of brainwashing that you display, cognitive dissonance is usually a problem. Your capacity for bogus rationalisation is impressive.
In a Communist scenario all the sofware would belong to the state, the choice of sharing would not be mine.
Right now it's still voluntary, yes...but if you know anything about Stallman and/or Bradley Kuhn, then you also know that they are very adamant in their belief that the GPL is the only license with the right to exist. You can be very sure that if Stallman had any ability whatsoever to dictate that the GPL were the only scenario under which software could be distributed or used at all, he would exercise it with great enthusiasm.
Hence, the GPL can be called Communist due to Stallman's intent, rather than the end result. Attempted murder is considered a crime even if the murderer is not successful in killing the victim, if the intent to kill can be clearly legally shown. Stallman's intentions with the GPL are most certainly Communist; the only reason why he is not able to realise those intentions fully is because he does not have as much control over the world as he would like.
Free software does not destroy the free market, but encourages it.
This would be true if a plurality of licenses were accepted and encouraged. However, a GPL monoculture has been seen time and again to be the end goal. Stallman's ideal scenario would be every bit as much a monoculture as Microsoft's; the only difference is that in Stallman's case, the hunger for controlled monoculture would be, and is, explicit.
I'd almost like to see your post modded up as 'Funny', just because it's so stupid and full of hilarious vitriol.
Yes, and so the readership of this site remains divided into two groups. Those of us who are able to see Richard Stallman for what he truly is, and despite the continual abuse we receive for doing so, are unafraid of writing about it, and those of us who continue to worship him blindly, and hold members of the first group in contempt, as well as continuing to demand our silence.
You may continue to demand our silence, but you will not obtain it.
Novell comments that if "the Free Software Foundation releases a new version of the GNU General Public License with certain currently proposed terms, our business may suffer harm."
Someone needs to sit a few people from Novell down at some point and explain to them that a desire to ensure that businesses suffer harm was arguably one of the main motivations behind the GPL having been written at all.
For once, I wish someone could actually give me a reasoned rebuttal on why they believe that I'm wrong in believing that (at least the intention behind) the GPL is largely anticapitalist, instead of simply calling me names (an idiot, a troll, "disingenous" etc) for making the statement. Continuing to only do that strongly implies that you don't actually have a rebuttal for that assertion, and so simply attempting to bury me in ad hominem is the best way to divert attention from that.
It's a shame I also can't run a betting pool about how likely I am to be told verbatim to again "shut the fuck up," in response to this as well. I suspect I'd end up making rather a large sum of money.;-)
Maybe Stallman's drones here genuinely are beginning to get desperate, if simply attempting to demand my silence is becoming the preferred way of answering rather than even regurgitating the usual rhetoric in response to me.
Yes, if you're opposed to people giving you software with source code for free, you indeed have to stop using a computer at all. It is indeed terrible. How dare people give you something for free, and how dare other people choose it.
This is hollow, reflexive emotionalism; nothing more.
Without the GPL, there would be no free software or open source software today.
Another emotive, subjective generalisation, indicative of brainwashing.
If you don't like the GPL, make arguments against the GPL.
What I primarily dislike are cultic drones such as yourself who, to truly add insult to injury, actually consider themselves intelligent, reasoned individuals for holding the beliefs that they do.
I'm sorry you're confused on this point
I'm considered confused on every point where I don't agree with the Stallmanite party line.
Well, then I suggest you stop using their software. You can start by canceling your Slashdot and Blogspot accounts and stop using Google and Firefox
Exactly my point. He ends up creating a scenario where his word, his ideology, is law. If you don't like it, your only alternative ultimately ends up becoming hardly using a computer at all. If that isn't raw authoritarianism, I'm not sure what is.
You've just proven my point, and you've done it very openly, for all to see. I either think and behave in exactly the manner that Stallman and people like yourself specify, or my right to use software at all becomes forfeit.
I thought the way ZDNet described it once was actually very insightful:- Free as in Do As I Say.
This is why Stallman is a problem, and this is why I feel as opposed to him as I do.
What would be better for FOSS is to recognize people like you for what they are: either, you're a Microsoft shill who's trying to use this as an excuse to throw mud at proven open source contributors, or you're just some anti-GPL zealot who is disappointed that the GPL is so widely used.
Do us a favour; come up with something new. For one thing, the shill argument is getting extremely old, and for another, the people who use it would be lucky if 1% of the time that it had been used, it had actually been accurate. It's a term Linux people use dismissively for anybody who says anything that they don't want to hear. Dissent from the groupthink? You're a shill.
Expressing critical or dissenting opinions about Richard Stallman is not a groundless activity, and I can assure you that it is not one which you or any of member of his cult will ever dissuade me from engaging in. If you want me or the rest of us to stop, here's how you can make it happen. Create a scenario where the FSF literally ceases to exist, and where Richard Stallman is dissuaded from engaging in any form of public work or appearance ever again. This scenario is what I want, and I'm not going to stop praying for it to happen or from creating any kind of opposition to him or his followers that I possibly can. I'm also going to offer any support I can to others on this site who engage in this activity. Richard Stallman is the proverbial scorpion on Linux's back. His formal organisation and the informal collective of his followers together are a scourge, and I honestly cannot adequately verbalise the extent of the loathing which I feel towards them.
I'm not merely a shill. From your perspective, I'm something considerably worse.
The Free Software / Open Source "community" is and has always been split.
This might be true, but the effectiveness of Stallman's fearmongering, coupled with the perception that Microsoft's recent behaviour reinforces it, and aided as always by the aggressive suppression of dissent engaged in by Stallman's followers, means that currently anyway, the cultic half of the abovementioned alliance is predominating.
We can hope that the pendulum eventually swings back, and things resume some vague semblance of genuine balance, however the prognosis for this is currently not good. As far as the open source side of the equation is concerned, Eric Raymond seems to have largely fallen out of sight, and the zealots are also apparently gradually succeeding at pulling Linus into line; at least to the point where he no longer is willing to express definitive resistance to their goals. Even if he still doesn't agree with the FSF internally, he will thus become controllable.
Stallman has enough handlers to help keep him out of the realm of shrieking in your face. He's actually matured, and gotten better at convincing strangers that he has some real answers for their concerns.
Yep. The problem with him dealing with people directly is that he's never had any real ability himself to hide what he is. The tremendous value inherent in the mouthpiece strategy is that said mouthpieces can be people who know how to sound infinitely more diplomatic, sane, and reasonable than Stallman himself, so he gets more supporters, (who because they don't know better, foolishly assume that Stallman himself is as sane as his representatives sound) and his genuine megalomania also stays safely hidden away from people who would otherwise have serious ethical problems with following him if they knew about it.
Stallman needs to communicate with people via third parties for exactly the same reason that Darth Vader ended up needing to wear the black suit; the outer appearance needs to be made at least vaguely palatable, because the genuine, internal reality is in fact truly monstrous.
In the new dawn emerging from the FOSS revolution we are finally getting what we really need to move technology forward: light.
No; what we've really been getting is cultic bullying and intimidation, and the sorts of methods of social reform customarily employed by the Amish.
Microsoft on the one hand make legally questionable back room deals. On the other, Perens gets on a soap box and threatens Novell with the dire things that will happen to them if they don't get back with the Stallmanite program. We also see rank and file Linux users engaging in their usual, continual gutter tactics of slandering and threatening anyone in the IT trade press who prints anything contrary to the opinions they want universally held.
The beloved "community" has NO moral superiority whatsoever. The approach might be different in some respects, but the goal is more or less the same; control over how people think, and the software they use. In fact, the single reason why I've always believed that the FSF/its' cheerleading squad are actually considerably morally worse than Microsoft is because of the degree of dishonesty inherent in their claim to have more morally desirable intentions. Stallman is an aspiring cult leader, the same as Hubbard or any of the rest of them who have existed throughout history. There's nothing elevated or enlightened about it at all.
PHBs need to understand they can't buy peace -- Not ever. They have to take it by choosing to be Free and Open.
If you really think that peace exists within the FOSS development community, maybe you should spend some time reading about the recent internal conflicts that have been plaguing both the Debian and Gentoo projects.
What you're not seeing is that whether free or proprietary, in *any* human social environment there will always be authoritarian megalomaniacs who crave power over others, and who also crave the ability to delude themselves that this power has a morally desirable basis. In the case of Microsoft, said megalomaniacs are Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer. In the case of FOSS, it's Richard Stallman and Bruce Perens.
That is what is unavoidable. In any collective, in any "community," you are always going to have the tyrants. They are completely inevitable. I want nothing more than to see Stallman simply disappear completely as far as Linux is concerned, but I know that lamentably, it will never happen. The cult is here, it's here to stay, and it's completely irremovable.
Now if Blizzard would only fix their client so it didn't crash at random times then I could actually play it.
As a first step, get rid of any addons you've installed. If that doesn't fix the problem, reinstall Windows, or run a virus scanner to get rid of the crap that your machine is almost certainly infested with. If you're using Linux, you may need a more recent version of Wine.
However, I routinely play WoW for probably a minimum of four hours a day with absolutely no problems. It doesn't crash for me at all.
I know I am casually condemning thousands of third world country workers to sudden unemployment, but I don't care.
The Chinese (who are the main nationality in question here I think) need to be given a very strong incentive not to see gold farming as a legitimate form of employment...because it isn't. Civil lawsuits on their own are unlikely to be enough; what Blizzard should really do IMHO is petition the Chinese government to conduct enforcement within their own country.
Gold farming isn't any more beneficial to the Chinese people themselves than it is to gamers. Apart from anything else, it sends a message to whichever businesspeople that are running these companies that Chinese employees are willing to be exploited; that they are willing to work long hours in poor conditions and be paid the absolute bare minimum required in order for them to have an incentive to do the work. The Chinese government isn't doing itself any favours by allowing the companies in question to exist, either. The companies in question are almost always owned by foreign nationals, and every last dollar of whatever revenue they make will leave China, if it ever enters the country at all. This does nothing for the Chinese economy.
I can understand Chinese workers wanting to make a living for themselves and their families as much as any other people on the planet, but I also feel that they should look for ways in which they can have a genuinely beneficial employment opportunity, rather than something which is exploitative and harmful to them simply because the people running said companies are willing to exploit these workers' own beliefs that they do not deserve better jobs. They do deserve better, and we as gamers deserve better than what they are doing to the games we play.
Gamers and the gold farmers are not actually on opposite sides here; the reality is that both groups are being screwed in this scenario by the usual plutocrats.
This was the year I was born also. It is at times difficult to believe that it has been as long as it has. The world has also changed since then, almost beyond recognition.
Very few of the changes, on balance, have been positive.
...and I'll say it again. The "average user" is neurotypical. The "average Linux user," for good or ill, most certainly isn't. The "average user" also doesn't have a fanatical aversion to capitalism.
The main two gaps between at least the most vocal minority of Linux users and mainstream, normal, above ground society are neurological and ideological. It doesn't really have a lot to do with the user interface of the OS in a strictly technical sense at all. Joe Sixpack can tolerate a CLI; DOS proved that. He may not like it, but he can be corralled into using it.
Most people don't want to be members of Stallman's cult. Most people see capitalism as a fundamentally good thing, and if they find something valuable and of use to them, are willing to pay for it. The things that are holding Linux back in a mainstream sense aren't actually about Linux itself at all, for the most part; they're about the fact that Stallman tried to create an ideological/socioeconomic profile for his followers, and then attached that to Linux. People can reply to this and call me a troll or whatever else they like as much as they want; that doesn't change anything, and it's not going to change my opinion or get me to be quiet. If you want to achieve my silence, you're going to have to try something else.
Improvements to Linux's hardware drivers and GUI aren't the things that are going to enable Linux's truly universal acceptance. The only thing that will enable that is the abolition of the Free Software Foundation and its' informal fan club. People can talk about world domination as much as they want, but as long as the FSF continues to exist and hold serious influence, Linux will continue, to a greater or lesser extent, to be fringe. If you want Linux to come out of the basement and the server room, dump the FSF. It's as simple as that.
GPL protects projects that want to focus on making good code, knowing that their efforts will be appreciated by others and not just ripped off, if you don't like that don't use GPL code and shut the fuck up about it.
I appreciate that you mention that the GPL isn't in fact "a freedom parade." What I primarily don't like is that the FSF insists on claiming that it is.
I'm also again told to shut up. I really am noticing, as I said earlier, that a consistent theme among FOSS advocates is a tendency to write people off as being devoid of integrity (a shill etc) and insist that they shut up if said people say anything you don't want to hear.
I'm sorry if it offends you that I refuse to conform to the standard FOSS groupthink. However, I'm also not going to do so.
You didn't need the survey to tell you the GPLv3 is unpopular; fine. What did tell you that?
Maybe what the kernel developers have said about it? Maybe MySQL's abstinence from adopting it? Maybe the fact that I haven't read about or heard of anyone who works with Linux commercially in any way who wants to touch it with an 18 foot pole, but I in fact have read large amounts about companies saying exactly the opposite?
Again, I don't say what you want to hear, and I don't support the standard groupthink, so I'm a troll, I'm on your foes list, and it is insisted that I shut the fuck up.
You said you don't see a lot in support of my argument; I'm seeing that the only thing you really have in support of yours is your attempt to silence me.
Its not like RMS is going to go around and force people to use a particular license.
He himself won't, no...he just uses his cult members to do it for him.
The FSF doesn't exist to please you, it exists to protect the 4 freedoms for all users of free software.
I know you're not going to want to be considered a brainwashed drone, so here's a hint; rote sloganeering in this manner does not work to promote the impression of you as being someone who is capable of independent thought.
Either people were afraid of repercussions for answering it, or people were absolutely and completely indifferent to it.
A lot of people are genuinely afraid of voicing opposition to what the FSF wants. I've seen that myself on here many times. It's because whenever somebody does try it, they are excoriated, slandered, and sometimes threatened.
Slashdot Mirror
The fact is you can't make a business model based around the current GPL version because once you switch to GPL software you become the bitch of the FSF. What is to say the FSF will not add other restrictions on the software you use?
Exactly. AMEN. Amen and amen, a thousand times amen. I have scarcely ever seen it stated more clearly.
FSF cultists, take note. I am aware that a war is currently being waged for people's minds, with the stakes being whether or not each individual who uses open source will recognise the truth and rid themselves of the iron fist of Richard Stallman. Despite all of the derision and abuse you pile upon me and those others of us here who continue to attempt to show people that which you are determined to prevent them from seeing, every single time I see a post from someone like this, indicating that yet one more person has come to understand, it is all made worth it.
Ego denuntio atqui sustento bellum defigo vos, Richard Stallman.
I don't advocate open source being outlawed at all. What I advocate is the erradication of what I percieve as an authoritarian, Marxist cult. (the FSF)
The single main reason why I advocate that is because I believe that open source under other licenses actually stands to experience much greater levels of adoption than if the FSF continues to exist, primarily because the FSF advocates (and is itself the source of) an ideology which causes alienation, conflict, and division.
Some time after the introduction of GPL v3, Novell might end up as the only company in the Linux distribution business that is not permitted to distribute kernel 2.6.xx in any form.
I sincerely hope so. If the FSF are mad enough to start a GPL blacklist, it'll be the beginning of the end of both credibility and relevance for them.
I'm really looking forward to when the FSF starts banning people they don't like from using GPL licensed software, because then there will finally be a tangible example to everyone who's watching of just how free Stallman's definition of freedom really is. It's an important step towards the FSF destroying itself.
I can't wait.
Interesting. So because I don't advocate a form of leftist extremism, it's automatically assumed that I must be a fascist instead?
It is funny to go on about how we might be a Stallman-bot
You are a Stallmanite drone, although the one thing I give you some credit for is your ability to take in absolutely any argument that you are faced with and somehow re-interpret it (at least in your own head) so that it still comes out conforming with your programming and paints Stallman as a saviour. For most people afflicted with the degree of brainwashing that you display, cognitive dissonance is usually a problem. Your capacity for bogus rationalisation is impressive.
FSF comes off as being more sane on the issue than a freeper like petrus4.
;)
What's a freeper?
That wasn't my response...that was an AC. ;)
In a Communist scenario all the sofware would belong to the state, the choice of sharing would not be mine.
Right now it's still voluntary, yes...but if you know anything about Stallman and/or Bradley Kuhn, then you also know that they are very adamant in their belief that the GPL is the only license with the right to exist. You can be very sure that if Stallman had any ability whatsoever to dictate that the GPL were the only scenario under which software could be distributed or used at all, he would exercise it with great enthusiasm.
Hence, the GPL can be called Communist due to Stallman's intent, rather than the end result. Attempted murder is considered a crime even if the murderer is not successful in killing the victim, if the intent to kill can be clearly legally shown. Stallman's intentions with the GPL are most certainly Communist; the only reason why he is not able to realise those intentions fully is because he does not have as much control over the world as he would like.
Free software does not destroy the free market, but encourages it.
This would be true if a plurality of licenses were accepted and encouraged. However, a GPL monoculture has been seen time and again to be the end goal. Stallman's ideal scenario would be every bit as much a monoculture as Microsoft's; the only difference is that in Stallman's case, the hunger for controlled monoculture would be, and is, explicit.
I'd almost like to see your post modded up as 'Funny', just because it's so stupid and full of hilarious vitriol.
Yes, and so the readership of this site remains divided into two groups. Those of us who are able to see Richard Stallman for what he truly is, and despite the continual abuse we receive for doing so, are unafraid of writing about it, and those of us who continue to worship him blindly, and hold members of the first group in contempt, as well as continuing to demand our silence.
You may continue to demand our silence, but you will not obtain it.
Novell comments that if "the Free Software Foundation releases a new version of the GNU General Public License with certain currently proposed terms, our business may suffer harm."
;-)
Someone needs to sit a few people from Novell down at some point and explain to them that a desire to ensure that businesses suffer harm was arguably one of the main motivations behind the GPL having been written at all.
For once, I wish someone could actually give me a reasoned rebuttal on why they believe that I'm wrong in believing that (at least the intention behind) the GPL is largely anticapitalist, instead of simply calling me names (an idiot, a troll, "disingenous" etc) for making the statement. Continuing to only do that strongly implies that you don't actually have a rebuttal for that assertion, and so simply attempting to bury me in ad hominem is the best way to divert attention from that.
It's a shame I also can't run a betting pool about how likely I am to be told verbatim to again "shut the fuck up," in response to this as well. I suspect I'd end up making rather a large sum of money.
Maybe Stallman's drones here genuinely are beginning to get desperate, if simply attempting to demand my silence is becoming the preferred way of answering rather than even regurgitating the usual rhetoric in response to me.
Yes, if you're opposed to people giving you software with source code for free, you indeed have to stop using a computer at all. It is indeed terrible. How dare people give you something for free, and how dare other people choose it.
This is hollow, reflexive emotionalism; nothing more.
Without the GPL, there would be no free software or open source software today.
Another emotive, subjective generalisation, indicative of brainwashing.
If you don't like the GPL, make arguments against the GPL.
What I primarily dislike are cultic drones such as yourself who, to truly add insult to injury, actually consider themselves intelligent, reasoned individuals for holding the beliefs that they do.
I'm sorry you're confused on this point
I'm considered confused on every point where I don't agree with the Stallmanite party line.
Well, then I suggest you stop using their software. You can start by canceling your Slashdot and Blogspot accounts and stop using Google and Firefox
Exactly my point. He ends up creating a scenario where his word, his ideology, is law. If you don't like it, your only alternative ultimately ends up becoming hardly using a computer at all. If that isn't raw authoritarianism, I'm not sure what is.
You've just proven my point, and you've done it very openly, for all to see. I either think and behave in exactly the manner that Stallman and people like yourself specify, or my right to use software at all becomes forfeit.
I thought the way ZDNet described it once was actually very insightful:- Free as in Do As I Say.
This is why Stallman is a problem, and this is why I feel as opposed to him as I do.
What would be better for FOSS is to recognize people like you for what they are: either, you're a Microsoft shill who's trying to use this as an excuse to throw mud at proven open source contributors, or you're just some anti-GPL zealot who is disappointed that the GPL is so widely used.
Do us a favour; come up with something new. For one thing, the shill argument is getting extremely old, and for another, the people who use it would be lucky if 1% of the time that it had been used, it had actually been accurate. It's a term Linux people use dismissively for anybody who says anything that they don't want to hear. Dissent from the groupthink? You're a shill.
Expressing critical or dissenting opinions about Richard Stallman is not a groundless activity, and I can assure you that it is not one which you or any of member of his cult will ever dissuade me from engaging in. If you want me or the rest of us to stop, here's how you can make it happen. Create a scenario where the FSF literally ceases to exist, and where Richard Stallman is dissuaded from engaging in any form of public work or appearance ever again. This scenario is what I want, and I'm not going to stop praying for it to happen or from creating any kind of opposition to him or his followers that I possibly can. I'm also going to offer any support I can to others on this site who engage in this activity. Richard Stallman is the proverbial scorpion on Linux's back. His formal organisation and the informal collective of his followers together are a scourge, and I honestly cannot adequately verbalise the extent of the loathing which I feel towards them.
I'm not merely a shill. From your perspective, I'm something considerably worse.
The Free Software / Open Source "community" is and has always been split.
This might be true, but the effectiveness of Stallman's fearmongering, coupled with the perception that Microsoft's recent behaviour reinforces it, and aided as always by the aggressive suppression of dissent engaged in by Stallman's followers, means that currently anyway, the cultic half of the abovementioned alliance is predominating.
We can hope that the pendulum eventually swings back, and things resume some vague semblance of genuine balance, however the prognosis for this is currently not good. As far as the open source side of the equation is concerned, Eric Raymond seems to have largely fallen out of sight, and the zealots are also apparently gradually succeeding at pulling Linus into line; at least to the point where he no longer is willing to express definitive resistance to their goals. Even if he still doesn't agree with the FSF internally, he will thus become controllable.
RMS has no control over what licenses people use.
Same as how Cardinal Ratzinger has absolutely no control over what anybody does or believes...Right?
Stallman has enough handlers to help keep him out of the realm of shrieking in your face. He's actually matured, and gotten better at convincing strangers that he has some real answers for their concerns.
Yep. The problem with him dealing with people directly is that he's never had any real ability himself to hide what he is. The tremendous value inherent in the mouthpiece strategy is that said mouthpieces can be people who know how to sound infinitely more diplomatic, sane, and reasonable than Stallman himself, so he gets more supporters, (who because they don't know better, foolishly assume that Stallman himself is as sane as his representatives sound) and his genuine megalomania also stays safely hidden away from people who would otherwise have serious ethical problems with following him if they knew about it.
Stallman needs to communicate with people via third parties for exactly the same reason that Darth Vader ended up needing to wear the black suit; the outer appearance needs to be made at least vaguely palatable, because the genuine, internal reality is in fact truly monstrous.
In the new dawn emerging from the FOSS revolution we are finally getting what we really need to move technology forward: light.
No; what we've really been getting is cultic bullying and intimidation, and the sorts of methods of social reform customarily employed by the Amish.
Microsoft on the one hand make legally questionable back room deals. On the other, Perens gets on a soap box and threatens Novell with the dire things that will happen to them if they don't get back with the Stallmanite program. We also see rank and file Linux users engaging in their usual, continual gutter tactics of slandering and threatening anyone in the IT trade press who prints anything contrary to the opinions they want universally held.
The beloved "community" has NO moral superiority whatsoever. The approach might be different in some respects, but the goal is more or less the same; control over how people think, and the software they use. In fact, the single reason why I've always believed that the FSF/its' cheerleading squad are actually considerably morally worse than Microsoft is because of the degree of dishonesty inherent in their claim to have more morally desirable intentions. Stallman is an aspiring cult leader, the same as Hubbard or any of the rest of them who have existed throughout history. There's nothing elevated or enlightened about it at all.
PHBs need to understand they can't buy peace -- Not ever. They have to take it by choosing to be Free and Open.
If you really think that peace exists within the FOSS development community, maybe you should spend some time reading about the recent internal conflicts that have been plaguing both the Debian and Gentoo projects.
What you're not seeing is that whether free or proprietary, in *any* human social environment there will always be authoritarian megalomaniacs who crave power over others, and who also crave the ability to delude themselves that this power has a morally desirable basis. In the case of Microsoft, said megalomaniacs are Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer. In the case of FOSS, it's Richard Stallman and Bruce Perens.
That is what is unavoidable. In any collective, in any "community," you are always going to have the tyrants. They are completely inevitable. I want nothing more than to see Stallman simply disappear completely as far as Linux is concerned, but I know that lamentably, it will never happen. The cult is here, it's here to stay, and it's completely irremovable.
Now if Blizzard would only fix their client so it didn't crash at random times then I could actually play it.
As a first step, get rid of any addons you've installed. If that doesn't fix the problem, reinstall Windows, or run a virus scanner to get rid of the crap that your machine is almost certainly infested with. If you're using Linux, you may need a more recent version of Wine.
However, I routinely play WoW for probably a minimum of four hours a day with absolutely no problems. It doesn't crash for me at all.
I know I am casually condemning thousands of third world country workers to sudden unemployment, but I don't care.
The Chinese (who are the main nationality in question here I think) need to be given a very strong incentive not to see gold farming as a legitimate form of employment...because it isn't. Civil lawsuits on their own are unlikely to be enough; what Blizzard should really do IMHO is petition the Chinese government to conduct enforcement within their own country.
Gold farming isn't any more beneficial to the Chinese people themselves than it is to gamers. Apart from anything else, it sends a message to whichever businesspeople that are running these companies that Chinese employees are willing to be exploited; that they are willing to work long hours in poor conditions and be paid the absolute bare minimum required in order for them to have an incentive to do the work. The Chinese government isn't doing itself any favours by allowing the companies in question to exist, either. The companies in question are almost always owned by foreign nationals, and every last dollar of whatever revenue they make will leave China, if it ever enters the country at all. This does nothing for the Chinese economy.
I can understand Chinese workers wanting to make a living for themselves and their families as much as any other people on the planet, but I also feel that they should look for ways in which they can have a genuinely beneficial employment opportunity, rather than something which is exploitative and harmful to them simply because the people running said companies are willing to exploit these workers' own beliefs that they do not deserve better jobs. They do deserve better, and we as gamers deserve better than what they are doing to the games we play.
Gamers and the gold farmers are not actually on opposite sides here; the reality is that both groups are being screwed in this scenario by the usual plutocrats.
This was the year I was born also. It is at times difficult to believe that it has been as long as it has. The world has also changed since then, almost beyond recognition.
Very few of the changes, on balance, have been positive.
...and I'll say it again. The "average user" is neurotypical. The "average Linux user," for good or ill, most certainly isn't. The "average user" also doesn't have a fanatical aversion to capitalism.
The main two gaps between at least the most vocal minority of Linux users and mainstream, normal, above ground society are neurological and ideological. It doesn't really have a lot to do with the user interface of the OS in a strictly technical sense at all. Joe Sixpack can tolerate a CLI; DOS proved that. He may not like it, but he can be corralled into using it.
Most people don't want to be members of Stallman's cult. Most people see capitalism as a fundamentally good thing, and if they find something valuable and of use to them, are willing to pay for it. The things that are holding Linux back in a mainstream sense aren't actually about Linux itself at all, for the most part; they're about the fact that Stallman tried to create an ideological/socioeconomic profile for his followers, and then attached that to Linux. People can reply to this and call me a troll or whatever else they like as much as they want; that doesn't change anything, and it's not going to change my opinion or get me to be quiet. If you want to achieve my silence, you're going to have to try something else.
Improvements to Linux's hardware drivers and GUI aren't the things that are going to enable Linux's truly universal acceptance. The only thing that will enable that is the abolition of the Free Software Foundation and its' informal fan club. People can talk about world domination as much as they want, but as long as the FSF continues to exist and hold serious influence, Linux will continue, to a greater or lesser extent, to be fringe. If you want Linux to come out of the basement and the server room, dump the FSF. It's as simple as that.
GPL protects projects that want to focus on making good code, knowing that their efforts will be appreciated by others and not just ripped off, if you don't like that don't use GPL code and shut the fuck up about it.
I appreciate that you mention that the GPL isn't in fact "a freedom parade." What I primarily don't like is that the FSF insists on claiming that it is.
I'm also again told to shut up. I really am noticing, as I said earlier, that a consistent theme among FOSS advocates is a tendency to write people off as being devoid of integrity (a shill etc) and insist that they shut up if said people say anything you don't want to hear.
I'm sorry if it offends you that I refuse to conform to the standard FOSS groupthink. However, I'm also not going to do so.
You didn't need the survey to tell you the GPLv3 is unpopular; fine. What did tell you that?
Maybe what the kernel developers have said about it? Maybe MySQL's abstinence from adopting it? Maybe the fact that I haven't read about or heard of anyone who works with Linux commercially in any way who wants to touch it with an 18 foot pole, but I in fact have read large amounts about companies saying exactly the opposite?
Again, I don't say what you want to hear, and I don't support the standard groupthink, so I'm a troll, I'm on your foes list, and it is insisted that I shut the fuck up.
You said you don't see a lot in support of my argument; I'm seeing that the only thing you really have in support of yours is your attempt to silence me.
Its not like RMS is going to go around and force people to use a particular license.
He himself won't, no...he just uses his cult members to do it for him.
The FSF doesn't exist to please you, it exists to protect the 4 freedoms for all users of free software.
I know you're not going to want to be considered a brainwashed drone, so here's a hint; rote sloganeering in this manner does not work to promote the impression of you as being someone who is capable of independent thought.
Either people were afraid of repercussions for answering it, or people were absolutely and completely indifferent to it.
A lot of people are genuinely afraid of voicing opposition to what the FSF wants. I've seen that myself on here many times. It's because whenever somebody does try it, they are excoriated, slandered, and sometimes threatened.