On Wed, 2006-02-22 at 15:36 -0500, Dave Robillard wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-22-02 at 10:32 +, Chris Cannam wrote:
> > Anyway, I've said more than enough.
>
> Havn't we all... :)
>
> -DR-
yeah but, no but, yeah but, no..
pete.
On Wed, 2006-22-02 at 10:32 +, Chris Cannam wrote:
> On Tuesday 21 Feb 2006 22:30, Dave Robillard wrote:
> > On Tue, 2006-21-02 at 20:36 +, Chris Cannam wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 21 Feb 2006 20:12, Dave Robillard wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2006-21-02 at 15:05 +, Chris Cannam wrote:
> > > > >
On Tuesday 21 Feb 2006 22:30, Dave Robillard wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-21-02 at 20:36 +, Chris Cannam wrote:
> > On Tuesday 21 Feb 2006 20:12, Dave Robillard wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2006-21-02 at 15:05 +, Chris Cannam wrote:
> > > > If my free software work puts a company or its developers out of
> > No, the fact of people having been put out of work is not itself a
> > victory for anyone.
>
> Straw man. I never said it was an overall win, just a win for free
> software. A proprietary program being replaced by a free one is
> obviously a "win for free software".
surely free software can
On Tue, 2006-21-02 at 20:36 +, Chris Cannam wrote:
> On Tuesday 21 Feb 2006 20:12, Dave Robillard wrote:
> > On Tue, 2006-21-02 at 15:05 +, Chris Cannam wrote:
> > > If my free software work puts a company or its developers out of
> > > work, then that's a problem for my conscience. It's no
On Tuesday 21 Feb 2006 20:12, Dave Robillard wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-21-02 at 15:05 +, Chris Cannam wrote:
> > If my free software work puts a company or its developers out of
> > work, then that's a problem for my conscience. It's not a victory
> > for free software.
>
> Yes it is.
No, the fact
On Tue, 2006-21-02 at 15:05 +, Chris Cannam wrote:
> An irony of both open source and free software is that they make it easy
> to forget that all software is almost always written by decent humans --
> for example, by implying that proprietary software developers are less
> moral and so les
On Tuesday 21 Feb 2006 20:04, Peter Bessman wrote:
> You're right, I jumped the gun.
Arf.
> I'm wondering why it was brought up. Perhaps the assumption was made
> that we're all in the same boat on this subject --- clearly, such is
> not the case.
Well, I strongly disagree with you on it -- but
Chris Cannam wrote:
On Tuesday 21 Feb 2006 15:57, Pete Bessman wrote:
On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 16:30 +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
Following your kind of logic, people caring for peace on Earth are
damaging the livelihoods of weapon producers, decent people mostly,
and that merely for their
On Tuesday 21 Feb 2006 15:57, Pete Bessman wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 16:30 +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
> > Following your kind of logic, people caring for peace on Earth are
> > damaging the livelihoods of weapon producers, decent people mostly,
> > and that merely for their selfish desire of
Tim Goetze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [Pete Bessman]
>>the salient point is that Chris stipulated that proprietary software
>>producers *aren't* evil! The only way they can be evil is if you
>>stipulate a moral code which dictates as much.
>
> I keep a good 150 or so .arr files around, stemmin
[Pete Bessman]
>the salient point is that Chris stipulated that proprietary software
>producers *aren't* evil! The only way they can be evil is if you
>stipulate a moral code which dictates as much.
I keep a good 150 or so .arr files around, stemming from the late 80s,
early 90s, back when I use
Pete Bessman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 16:30 +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Chris Cannam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > An irony of both open source and free software is that they make it
>> > easy to forget that all software is almost always written by decent
>> >
> weapon producers, who you're equating with evil
> (and, implicitly, weapon
> users, a fact which I find personally insulting). That's all wrong,
Very arguable. I find him being right about weapons.
> Yeah, ever heard of capitalism? Or do you have a bone to pick with
> that, too?
Capitalism in
Tuesday 21 Feb 2006 15:30, David Kastrup wrote:
> Following your kind of logic, people caring for peace on Earth are
> damaging the livelihoods of weapon producers, decent people mostly,
> and that merely for their selfish desire of a world worth living in.
*sigh*
We're not talking about weapons.
On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 16:30 +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
> Chris Cannam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > An irony of both open source and free software is that they make it
> > easy to forget that all software is almost always written by decent
> > humans -- for example, by implying that proprieta
Chris and Pete, please DO pay attention to
On 2/21/06, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The mantra of artificial inefficiency by forced reinvention of the
> wheel is nothing that aids progress: it merely supports stagnation, at
> the same time burning through our natural resources at app
Chris, pay no attention to Dave. That message was bloody brilliant!
Very enlightening, head slapping "Oh man! That's IT!" read. You should
really consider expanding that and putting it up somewhere in essay
form, they're are a quintillion people who could benefit by reading it.
--
Pete Bessman
Chris Cannam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> An irony of both open source and free software is that they make it
> easy to forget that all software is almost always written by decent
> humans -- for example, by implying that proprietary software
> developers are less moral and so less significant.
"Free software". But I do loosely use both terms.
The problem with open-source-as-ideology is that it uses ends and
evaluative methods drawn from business and applies them to things that
are not business.
It may or may not be true that open source development can produce
better software for
2006/2/20, Pete Bessman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> WHAT is your NAME?
Richard Spindler
> WHAT is your QUEST?
Write, use and advocate FREE Software.
> WHAT is your FAVORITE ALBUM?
I don't listen to music very much.
Hi,
First of all, I'm not a musician, but a programmer. I enjoy hacking
audio and
Hi,
being a desktop user, I mainly use Linux for the freedom it grants. The
software I use doesn't try to bind me to proprietary file formats, the
system doesn't hide things from me (not talking about my own ignorance
here ;-) and the collaboration with all the other people around is pure
fu
On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 14:55 -0500, Pete Bessman wrote:
> This email is way, way longer than I intended it to be, and for that I
> apologize. Remember that I'm not looking to stir up any hostilities, I
> just want to hear where people stand on The Issues and get a sense of
> the community. I pred
Sir Robin
The Holy Grail
The White Album, no, the Dark Side of the MooArggh
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Pete
Bessman
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 1:56 PM
To: LAU
Cc: LAD
Subject: [linux-audio-dev] Free Software vs
Well, I'm about to crack open a can of worms, but let me just say that
I'm 100% not interested in starting any debates/fights/riots/states-of-
emergency. All I'm interested in is hearing where people stand and why
--- I don't want to persuade people one way or the other, and I'd like
to ask that e
25 matches
Mail list logo
