gnu-misc-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software


From: Aaron R. Kulkis
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 06:57:38 -0500

Austin Ziegler wrote:
> 
> On 15 Mar 2001, Sam Holden wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 09:10:03 -0500,
> >       Austin Ziegler <address@hidden> wrote:
> >> On 14 Mar 2001, Sam Holden wrote:
> >>> Les Mikesell:
> >>>> "Sam Holden" <address@hidden> wrote in message
> >>>> Of course the original authors have the right to prevent others from
> >>>> being able to use the code in many ways that would be useful
> >>>> to others, as the GPL restrictions do.    I don't think anyone questions
> >>>> that right.  The question is, why does anyone else consider this to be
> >>>> a good thing and how can they mention it in the same sentence with
> >>>> freedom or sharing?
> >>> Because they look at it from the users point of view, not the
> >>> developers point of view. I'm not going to argue the case again -
> >>> there have been enough posts and www.gnu.org has enough explanation
> >>> of the rationale behind the GPL.
> >> It's a weak argument, though. Users[1] want software that works. They
> >> don't want to muck around with the internals of software. They MIGHT
> >> benefit from the source availability by being able to hire someone to
> >> do the work for them, but that assumes that (1) they know someone to
> >> hire, (2) they know how to specify the fixes required, and (3) they can
> >> afford such hire in the first place. If not, they're entirely dependent
> >> upon the goodwill of the developers out there.
> > That's your view.
> 
> Which part are you disagreeing with? The whole thing? That's silly on
> its face. First, users -- and by this I mean non-technogeeks and
> technogeeks together -- want software that works. This isn't a view,
> this is a fact.
> 
> Second, of those same users, only a FEW of the technogeeks are going to
> want to bother with the source code for any given program directly.

The "low" proportion of programmers is mmaterial.
If ONE programmer fixes a bug in an open-source program, and releases the
patch, then the bug has been fixed FOR EVERYBODY.

Looking at sheer numbers, Unix-land has FAR more programmers than Windows.
This has Bill Gates exceedingly agitated....college kids are setting
up Linux on what are literally thrown-away machines (486, early Pentiums),
and have a development platform for very few $$$....getting a development
package for Windows costs a couple THOUSAND dollars...and then you gotta
pay a few thousand MORE for the documentation...

Not many college kids have $10,000 to throw around just to get started
in C and/or C++.




> Again, this isn't a view, this is a fact. When you look at the
> proportion of geek-users to real-world users, the numbers are
> vanishingly small for those who want to touch the code. When you look
> at certain sets of programs, you find that the numbers are (sadly) even
> smaller. Once again, this isn't a view, it's a fact.

So, you must be implying that the variety of Windows software is
due to a high proportion of Windows  programmers who are programmers.
This contradicts your initial assumption that there is a very very
low proportion of programmers.

Game
set
match.

YOU LOSE!


> 
> Third, my analysis of one's options if one DOES have the source code
> available is also a fact. The options are PRECISELY as I've stated:
> either depend on the goodwill of developers (the developers of the
> package or developers you know) or hire someone. Most users aren't
> going to know a fscking thing about hiring a software developer to fix
> their software problems -- again, this is a fact.

As opposed to closed-source platforms, where the option doesn't
even exist...at ANY level.


> 
> I'm curious how you translate these three FACTUAL items into a 'view'
> -- as if you could dismiss this reality. Maybe you think you can.
> 
> I'm a software designer, and I have NO interest in seeing or mucking
> around with the source code to a Quicken-like software program. I want
> it to work. I want it to work with my bank's software, and I want it to

In which case, you should be pushing for software that works according
to open, published communications and data format standards, so that
there will be competition for who can come up with the best implementation
of software which conforms to those standards.



> work with my investment goals, too. I know what I'm paid, and it's far
> easier for me to upgrade to the next version (assuming I have a
> problem) than it is to consider mucking around the internals of
> software. (I could spend about 4 hours looking at the source code
> before I've exceeded the value proposition such activity offers me.

Are you familiar with the sentance of death by a thousand cuts?

Why spend $100 for an upgrade, when there is an option to get
equivalent (even SUPERIOR) performance without spending money?


> Having fixed bugs before, I don't have the days that bugs often take to
> find -- especially in an unfamiliar codebase.) Again, this is a fact --
> not a view.
> 
> > Because of it you won't agree with the GPL, since it is
> > based on an opposing view. The GPL is based on the idea that non-free
> > software is bad.
> 
> This is an irrelevancy. Would you care to contribute to the discussion
> instead of saying something worthless?
> 
> > This is the difference between the 'free software' (a FSF
> > term which they define explecitely so please don't argue about the word
> > free yet again) movement and the 'open source' (another well defined term,
> > please don't argue about the differnt meaning of the word open) movement.
> 
> If you say so. They are STILL lying by calling GPLed software "free".
> Period. It is RESTRICTED software. You may agree or disagree with the
> restrictions, but again -- that's irrelevant to the point I made above.
> 
> You said that the FSF looks from the user's point of view. I said that
> your argument there is weak. Painfully weak, in fact, because the only
> thing that any given user of a piece of software wants is that it
> fscking WORKS! The FSF (and the OSI) *claims* a benefit to source
> availability, and while I think it's a great thing ... it's not really
> what the user wants or cares about.
> 
> [...]
> 
> > Your definition of free is obviously different. Hopefully you don't have
> > a problem with people having different views.
> 
> Only when they use deceptive terms to try to get their view across.
> 
> >>> If you think that non-free software is OK, then you will not agree with
> >>> the GPL and it's rationale. Since that is the basis of it.
> >> Not "non-free" -- because that presumes that GPLed code *is* free, and
> >> that ain't the case (and never WILL be the case). There ARE reasons to
> >> use the GPL and GPLed code, but there are reasons for using any number
> >> of other licences. Specifically, the FSF believes that per-user or
> >> per-copy licensing is bad -- and sometimes they're right. But sometimes
> >> it's an economic model that's far more sustainable than mere goodwill.
> > Your missing the point because you decided to yet again bring up a
> > 'GPLed code is not free' argument for no apparent reason. Obviously you
> > should take non-free as the definition given by the FSF for this instance.
> 
> No, I'm not missing the point -- that's what you've been doing. And I
> *don't* use 'non-free' or 'free' in the way that the FSF does because
> they've perverted those terms in such ways as to make them useless in
> any discussion except under those who are religiously converted to
> FSFianism and those who decide to play Humpty Dumpty and change the
> meaning of words to suit them however they wish.
> 
> > Is that better? Can you understand the underlying point now? Or would you
> > like to play yet more word games?
> 
> I didn't play word games, Mr Holden. I pointed out facts and said that the
> word games played by the FSF were worthless.
> 
> -f
> --
> austin ziegler   * Ni bhionn an rath ach mar a mbionn an smacht
> Toronto.ON.ca    * (There is no Luck without Discipline)
> -----------------* I speak for myself alone


-- 
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642

K: Truth in advertising:
        Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shelala,
        Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakan,
        Special Interest Sierra Club,
        Anarchist Members of the ACLU
        Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
        The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
        Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,


J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
   The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
   also known as old hags who've hit the wall....

I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
   challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
   between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
   Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole

H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
    premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
    you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
    you are lazy, stupid people"

G:  Knackos...you're a retard.


F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
   adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.

E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
   her behavior improves.

D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
   ...despite (C) above.
 
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.

B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
   method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
   direction that she doesn't like.

A:  The wise man is mocked by fools.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]