On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 10:42:06PM +0200, Rado S wrote:
> =- Jing Xue wrote on Wed 17.Oct'07 at 16:07:28 -0400 -=
> >
> > Because coders are supposed to code solutions into a tool, not to
> > code their ideology into it. (well as far as software tools are
> > concerned)
>
> Why is that so?
> It's not like you're forced such a ideology-loaded tool or are
> entitled to use the work of somebody else against his will, or are
> you? ;)
> Don't like it as it is? Do it yourself.
//sigh, why is it that at the end of every one of these debates, there
is always this boiler plate answer that awaits?
I thought OSS was about the freedom of choice, and about letting (not
forcing) more and more people realize that they do have more choices.
I never thought of OSS as a path to the elitism of "I can do it myself,
and you can't", even despite that the elitism is really just an
illusion, because people "can't" do it maybe out of many reasons other
than their skill sets.
Do you really rewrite every piece of software you find not up to your
expectations, yet you cannot convince the developer to change it because
the developer does not agree with you philosophically?
This is _not_ about the attitude of the user's, but that of the
developer's.
> > His point, and obviously I paraphrase, is that that would be
> > imposing an ideology on people, and that would be bad, {...}
>
> There are obviously drawbacks for either imposing or refraining from
> it, again a matter of preference of potentially resulting consequences.
How can you call it a matter of preference, when the very choice of this
"preference" itself may conflict with the fundamental value behind the
ideology?
> > In my book of "good and bad", requesting a mail receipt is nowhere
> > remotely close to spamming/trashing. 8-)
>
> Neither is it in mine, was just giving an example why it can be
> reasonable/ necessary to think more about consequences of what you
> release on the world ahead of time.
Yes, it _can_ be reasonable. It is reasonable when the consequences are
actually bad - as in your example. It _can_ also be unreasonable and in
turn self-righteously imposing when the consequences are not even
remotely close to being "bad".
Cheers.
--
Jing Xue
