goddamn 'nym wrote:welch wrote:goddamn 'nym wrote:
I think you need to pick better examples. LibreOffice was forked from OpenOffice in 2010. Most of its "shitty UI" was written by StarDivision/Oracle.
In TWO YEARS they can't even begin to fix it? WTF happened to all
the amazing speed and efficiency of Open Source. (I already know. UI is actually really fucking hard, boring, and you have to think about other people. So don't hold your breath.)
Now you are just ridiculing people for no reason. "amazing speed and efficiency of Open Source", who claimed that?
Um, it's one of the primary reasons FOR open source. That when nothing is hidden, everyone can contribute, and you can get amazing results. In fact, it's essentially codified as "Linus's Law":
The law states that "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow"; or more formally: "Given a large enough beta-tester and co-developer base, almost every problem will be characterized quickly and the fix will be obvious to someone."
That *can* happen, but it is constantly overstated by the FOSS fans. Instead, what you find are the things people want to work on get a lot of attention, and the stuff that no one wants is ignored. UI design is not something you can just bang out. You have to bring together a lot of different disciplines and be willing to give someone the ability to say "no". When you don't have that, you get...well, X11 was a great example.
But that whole "It's faster/better" is one of the big reasons behind Open Source as being "superior".
goddamn 'nym wrote:
welch wrote:
goddamn 'nym wrote:
The section in question discusses a personal choice for his career somewhere around the KT boundary. It does not back your claim that RMS argues that free software confers moral superiority (to whom anyway?).
As I thought. Let's make this easy. You tell me the words Stallman must use for my statement to be correct. He's
ranted about the moral superiority of Free software for years, if not decades, but i've no interest in reading your mind. You put the words here. Then i"ll see if he actually said those precise words. It will make things easier on everyone.
Your original claim was: "It confers neither moral superiority nor inferiority no matter how many times RMS stamps his feet otherwise"
As far as I can tell he says that free software is better from a moral, ethical economical etc. perspective. I don't see where he claims this confers superiority on individuals.
You seem to have some sort of caricature in your mind where RMS is this one-issue clown that rants about free software all day and measures everyone based on whether they follow the cult of free software or not. I linked to his comments on Apple which show that contrary to what you claimed he doesn't trash companies for not writing free software. The reality is that he trashes Apple for specific restrictions it imposes on users. All of what I've seen on his site is specific criticism of consequences not the stupid broad generalizations that you ascribe to him. Maybe you need to search through Q&A sessions or similar where people say this kind of stuff in the heat of the moment.
Well, RMS is a one-issue clown. he has been for years. RMS Good, !RMS bad.
But here...If I tell you that doing A is good, and doing B is bad, over and over. If I continually frame A as good and B as bad. for decades. No grey area, this is black and white. Now, you see people doing B. B is a bad thing. What kind of people do bad things?
What does this quote from
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html tell you about people who don't say "no" to proprietary software?
As a computer user today, you may find yourself using a proprietary program. If your friend asks to make a copy, it would be wrong to refuse. Cooperation is more important than copyright. But underground, closet cooperation does not make for a good society. A person should aspire to live an upright life openly with pride, and this means saying no to proprietary software.
For once, don't just parrot words. Think a moment. If I say a thing is bad, morally bad, what does that say about the people who do that thing?
goddamn 'nym wrote:
welch wrote:
goddamn 'nym wrote:
I am not an FSF person. I linked to the FSF because you were confusing their definition of "free software" and your own and were asserting that their license is in conflict with their own ideals. If you insist that you actually knew that and were deliberately spinning this to make them look like hypocrites then please don't do that again in the future.
Their license is not free. It is not even close to free. It is highly restrictive and lays down specific terms that tell you what you cannot do with GPL'd software.
That's not free, that's "Free". The GPL is not about freedom in any sense other than what the people behind the GPL decide "freedom" is. If they don't like something, then they modify the GPL to ban the use of GPL'd software in that instance.
It's not significantly different then the way the Soviet Leaders meant "freedom": "you're free to act in the way we require and do the things we allow".
That's why i point out the BSD license as a truly "free" license. The GPL simply is not, and therefore, their claims to supporting software freedom are crapola.
You disagree with the FSF's definition of "free", fine. I acknowledged this the first time.
Obviously the BSD license is not truly "free" under your definition since it imposes requirements on the user.
A "free" license under your definition is
http://creativecommons.org/choose/zero/
I am not sure I understand your issue with different versions of the GPL. You are free to use whichever you like. The BSD licenses comes in different versions too.
Oh for...have you actually looked at the differences between GPLv2 and GPLv3? I only ask because the differences are not small, and if you seriously cannot understand why someone would see the significant increase in limitations in V3 as a problem, even if you don't agree, then I start wondering if you have actually read even the diffs on the two versions.
Also, exactly what restrictions does the BSD license place on your use of its source code? Any of the current versions will work, be it "New", "Simplified" or the NetBSD license?
And because I sadly have to: by restrictions, I mean, what can you NOT do with the source code according to the BSD license.
goddamn 'nym wrote:welch wrote:Ah, the GPLv2. Which is not the current version is it? No. No it is not. As well, nice way to misrepresent what Hubbard was trying to say.
Please go back to what he wrote. He wrote about the GPL scaring users away. GPLv3 is not widely in use so it is clearly not what he meant. My point was that even though his theoretical argument has merit the practice shows it to be irrelevant.
Define "not widely in use", because depending on who you ask, it's between 6.5% (Black Duck Software) and 50% (Google Code projects). Also, I fail to see what popularity has to do with it. The fact is the GPLv3 does exist and some fairly large projects, like SAMBA are now using it, it is most definitely "widely" in use.
But so what? If something isn't popular, then it can't be bad? You gripe about Git supposedly arguing from authority, then you use popularity? Really?
goddamn 'nym wrote:welch wrote:Oh and points for "i've not seen it so it's not there."
I didn't realize the point about Linux vs *BSD adoption among SoC vendors was going to be controversial. Otherwise I would have dropped it cause I am too lazy to go through dozens of webpages just to provide tons of links that state the obvious. Even if someone somewhere offers a *BSD port that doesn't negate the point that Linux is widely adopted despite the GPL.
Linux is widely adopted in spite of the GPL because Linus is a pragmatist and an asshole who views getting things done as having value. Otherwise we'd still be waiting on HURD. Which we are.
goddamn 'nym wrote:welch wrote:goddamn 'nym wrote:
I don't even disagree with welch on that one but I can't help but highlight your argument from authority. Now lets get to comparing who has the biggest one.
So he's not allow to point out the thing that gives him some vague form of expertise in the field?
The rest of his quote was: "I find myself violently
agreeing with everything Welch has said on this subject. He is speaking sense, at least on this one."
If he agrees with everything you said then he agrees with a the whole collection of your cartoon character depictions of RMS that you produced here and have not backed up with actual quotes. His expertise does nothing to close that evidence gap.
You still have yet to say what you'd accept as a permissible quote from RMS. I wish you would because it would make this much easier. I know you won't for that very reason.
And really, if all I wanted to do was turn RMS into a cartoon character, I'd just use this:
[youtube]I25UeVXrEHQ[/youtube]
Stallman turns himself into a caricature far better than I ever could.