Quoth Nadav Har'El: > I think you misunderstood Richard Stallman's point. He's not saying that > everybody cares about their freedom, but rather (if I understood him > correctly) that everybody *should* care about their freedom. In fact, he's > lamenting the fact that too few people think about their own freedom.
No, I understood this point. I just fear that this is exatly the
laziness I spoke about - thinking (though in a manner that is not
fleeting) about one's freedom is exercising it (albeit to a very limited
degree).
> Moreover, you are missing Stallman's second point, with which I fully agree:
> Support for free software (or "Linux" or "Open Source", or whatever you
> prefer to call it) cannot be *only* about the software's quality - we haven't
> got to that stage yet.
I am not missing it, I agree with it and therefore have no bones to pick
here. But this step - the "right" thing, the "good" thing being the
norm and, therefore, trivially expected - is the required step in
discussing software quality in a manner detached from other concerns.
Until it is achieved, and I argue that it cannot be achieved before a
significant advancement of human ethics, the only argument that is
easily accepted is that of quality/price. I am not happy with it, but I
can either play the argument game or play with myself (which, I admit,
is what I do, mostly).
> You said most people don't care about freedom, but similarly most people also
> don't care about the "quality" of the software. If people cared about the
> quality of their software, do you think Windows would have been such a
> success? :)
Yes. This for this simple reason:
What is better:
Hige sceal the heardra
or
Mod sceal the mare
You (and most of this list) lack the knowledge to answer the question
(which, by the way is:
What is better:
Spirit shall be the harder
or
Courage the greater)
This is where most people are about computers. They can judge the
(perish the phrase I am typing) surface features but not the (I am going
to wash my hands with sulphuric acid later) the deep structure - cotext
versus context. Most people judge computers on the "Ooooooh, aaaaah!"
scale. Knowledge is not a goal, knowledge is not an advantage. Knowledge
is a burden and a pain and people do not want it. Yes, I am Augustinian.
> But even more sadly, in some cases free software is perceived to have
> lower quality than proprietary software. Free word processors cannot
> read MS-Word files properly (because Microsoft hides the format's
> specifications, and to add insult to injury it frequently changes the
> format). Free operating systems cannot legally play DVDs or MP3s in
> the US (because of DMCA and patent issues respectively). Web-site
> owners consider free browsers (such as Mozilla, Konqueror, Lynx, etc.)
> as inferior and tell us that their sites don't work for us because of
> our browsers' "bugs".
Are they or are they not bugs? ;-). The answer is "yes" in both cases.
In your, my and RMS's books, they are not bugs. But in the hoi poloi's
mind, they are bugs, "cuz we cunt cee da nise www.peep.co.il sait wid
dis stoopd leeenux."
And, to them, their book is all that matters until and unless (and,
alas, I believe not in change) educating strikes them by accident.
> You know, in the 1960s blacks in some southern US states (Alabama, Arkansas,
> etc.) had to live under various segregation laws. They had to sit at the
> backs of busses, sit in special places at diners (or forbidden entrance
> altogether), and had go to special schools. They certainly felt this lack of
> freedom. Do you really believe all that was important to them was to exercise
> this freedom? Did they really prefer sitting in the front of the bus?
> Would a black feel comfortable in an all-white school? Did they really want
> to eat at diners owned by racists and Klan members? Probably not. But they
> wanted to have that choice, the same choice that the whites had. They
> wanted it really bad. "Let freedom ring from every hill and mole hill of
> Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring." Does that ring a
> bell? (pun intended :)).
First, I submit that freedom and equality are not the same.
I submit that Martin Luther King's idea of equality, Malcolm X's idea of
equality and John Doe's idea of equality were not the same. I also
submit that the difference between a black and a white in 'ole south was
so pronounced that "equality" had tangible advantages. Freedom, in my
opinion, was and is (wrongly) equated with equality.
> I think you underestimate humans' need for freedom.
There is a difference. Need for what kind of freedom? Actual freedom?
Perceived freedom? Perceived is what is required and needed by people.
Actual is what is important. RMS is bucking for actual. I submit that
his ideals are foreign to the general run of mankind (myself, i hasten
to admit, included in great many cases) - freedom is something that one
has to weigh and examine. One has to be conscious of it.
I was going to snip the paragraph below, but then you went and mentioned
the Day of Atonement. No snip, a rant.
> take it away from us. The most holy of our holidays, Yom Kippur,
> celebrates (if one can say that) our freedom to chose our own actions
> - a freedom that we are told to excercise thoughtfully and carefully,
> because we are accountable before God for our actions, especially
> towards other people.
And most people I know view the DoA as a general indulgence purchase.
I.e. fornicate on the side, steal a bit, screw with the laws, embezzle a
bit and then BLAMMO, come October, one fasts, goes pro forma to the
church and is absolved. Bollocks, Nadav. Most people do not know
atonement from a hole in the ground. The DoA is the Israeli version of
purchase of indulgences.
And as for God, which God? Were I you, I'd not mention God - that
bloodthirsty maniac who, were he brought to justice, would be locked in
a cell deeper than good old JVJ, being both more calculated and more
bloody-handed. One atones NOT before God. One atones before oneself and
before the hurt, not before a mythical entity which, when the whim
strikes it (supposedly) distributes swords in farcical aquatic
ceremonies.
This DoA ceremony is an evil which prevents and excuses people from
being responsible for their own actions, transfering the burden of guilt
to some farcical father-figure.
> [note that I deliberately kept current Israeli politics out of this post.
> I suggest we keep it this way, lest this mailing list becomes an ugly
> battle-ground before the upcoming elections]
I do not mention those on purpose too and in agreement with you. Of
course, if you have a reef.... never mind.
Marc
--
---OFCNL
This is MY list. This list belongs to ME! I will flame anyone I want.
Official Flamer/Cabal NON-Leader [EMAIL PROTECTED]
msg25176/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
