Names for GNU/Linux that you like

[ZXDunny]

This is a lot of text, but all you're really saying is: "the free software movement looks to me like annoying religious people", yet you don't really explain how your supposed observations of the free software movement are similar to the religious friend you talked about earlier on. I don't know of anybody in the free software movement who hangs outside of Apple stores and tries to "preach" to Apple users; the closest thing to this I can think of is when some FSF employees handed Trisquel CDs to people when Windows 8 was released, which was obviously a strategic move to tie into the "they changed it, now it sucks" backlash that Windows 8 had. I'm also not aware of anyone in the free software movement who proclaims that others have been successful at "converting" people into using free software. It just doesn't work that way.

You're doing it right now and you can't even see it.

This forum is our pub; you're the evangelising christian trying to convert people. And by christian, I'm obviously using that as a metaphor for your FSF stance.

This forum is our local council building; you and your kin (and by that I mean your FSF-brethren, not your actual family) are standing outside throwing eggs and generally being a nuisance. You're shouting a lot of things that ultimately mean nothing and will have little effect. And your leader is glad that someone has died purely because that person didn't agree with his views.

Are we getting through to you yet?

I cannot think of a group of more odious and disgusting people than you and yours. And by "yours" I mean FSF-folk, not your actual family.

D.

 

[moxie]

This is a lot of text, but all you're really saying is: "the free software movement looks to me like annoying religious people", yet you don't really explain how your supposed observations of the free software movement are similar to the religious friend you talked about earlier on. I don't know of anybody in the free software movement who hangs outside of Apple stores and tries to "preach" to Apple users; the closest thing to this I can think of is when some FSF employees handed Trisquel CDs to people when Windows 8 was released, which was obviously a strategic move to tie into the "they changed it, now it sucks" backlash that Windows 8 had. I'm also not aware of anyone in the free software movement who proclaims that others have been successful at "converting" people into using free software. It just doesn't work that way.

In order to get something that could be reasonably compared to your religious friend from free software activism, you would have to have someone like me hunting down posts that have some mention of a proprietary program and saying "join us , don't use the proprietary program X, use program Y, which is free software!", or "join us, don't use proprietary program X, just live without it!" Similarly, you would have someone like me

[...loads of text... ]

Thank you for making my point more eloquently than I ever could by myself. I am grateful.

 

[sebt3]

Luckily in our pub we also have floss advocates (as opposed to preachers) that can explain the great benefits of floss without having to resort to religion and understand that close source might have a point somewhere in the software world.

Sadly guys like onpon make these advocates sound as bad as the preachers and are draging this philosophy down...

 

[moxie]

I cannot think of a group of more odious and disgusting people than you and yours. And by "yours" I mean FSF-folk, not your actual family.

I don't think this is right, really. It's what Sebt3 says - There are a lot of nice, thoughtful and intelligent FSF-folks, just as there are christians, peace advocates, anti-racists, and protestors of NPM in health care. The problem lies in the evangelists/zealots/fanatics/whatever you may call them. I would probably call myself an FSF kind of person, was it not because that means I will be in the same camp as nowadays-RMS (thenadays-RMS was a lot more reasonable). Of course, I might be odious and disgusting, but I think that I at least don't let it show too much in the boards

But in the public eye goes the ones that are most visible. And most visible are not those who care about being reasonable, listening, compromising and pragmatic. Most visible are always those who like shouting, breaking things, and Being In The Right.

 

[ZXDunny]

Luckily in our pub we also have floss advocates (as opposed to preachers) that can explain the great benefits of floss without having to resort to religion and understand that close source might have a point somewhere in the software world.

Sadly guys like onpon make these advocates sound as bad as the preachers and are draging this philosophy down...

I agree. One of my distant relatives is a dentist, and does our family's dental work. She just does not stop banging on about floss.

I cannot think of a group of more odious and disgusting people than you and yours. And by "yours" I mean FSF-folk, not your actual family.

I don't think this is right, really. It's what Sebt3 says - There are a lot of nice, thoughtful and intelligent FSF-folks, just as there are christians, peace advocates, anti-racists, and protestors of NPM in health care. The problem lies in the evangelists/zealots/fanatics/whatever you may call them. I would probably call myself an FSF kind of person, was it not because that means I will be in the same camp as nowadays-RMS (thenadays-RMS was a lot more reasonable). Of course, I might be odious and disgusting, but I think that I at least don't let it show too much in the boards

So long as you wear decent shoes or boots and not socks under your sandals with khaki short trousers I think you're probably good. RMS also picks crap out of his toes and eats it; that is odious and disgusting and reflects badly on people like Onpon.

But in the public eye goes the ones that are most visible. And most visible are not those who care about being reasonable, listening, compromising and pragmatic. Most visible are always those who like shouting, breaking things, and Being In The Right.

Ok, I can see your point there and I'll take that back to modify it as "people like onpon". I actually like _wb_ even if we don't see eye to eye on FSF issues but then he doesn't try to ram it down my throat every time I click on "View New Content" like Onpon does.

I propose a new sub-section in the "Off-topic" forum titled "nutjobs and other weirdos" where those of us that don't want to be evangelised to can just remove the subforum from our filters. Along with banning for people that try to pollute other areas of the boards with evangelism and emotional blackmail.

Note that I don't include all discussions of FOSS and GPL etc in that; some informed discussion can take place if Onpon doesn't get involved.

D.

 

[_wb_]

Every ideological current that has something interesting to say, tends to attract some hard-core "nutjobs" who defend those ideas in a way that can be counterproductive.

On the other hand, every interesting ideological current also tends to have a subcurrent of "realists" who want to water down the ideology in order to be more "acceptable" to the mainstream or to be more "productive" and be more successful in the short term.

In the context of FOSS, you could say that RMS and the FSF are the "nutjobs", while ESR and the Open Source Initiative are the "realists".

In my opinion, if you subscribe to an ideological current, you should try to get the best of both worlds. The quality of hard-core "nutjobs" is that they do not compromise and remain true to the ideas - and this is important, because once you get on the slippery slope of watering down and compromising, you'll find out that sooner or later, you end up somewhere very far away from your starting point (for instance, take a look at how the social-democracy, e.g. New Labour, evolved in the past couple of decades). The quality of "realists" is that they care about gaining support from outsiders and formulating ideas in a way that does not scare people away - this is also important, because a movement is worthless if nobody even knows it exists.

The danger of "nutjobs" is that they scare some people away. The danger of "realists" is that they derail the entire movement into a dead end. In my opinion, the potential long-term danger of "realists" is a bigger one than that of "nutjobs".

 

[sebt3]

The danger of "nutjobs" is that they scare some most people away. The danger of "realists" is that they might derail the entire movement into a dead end.

Allow me to fix that for you.

In my opinion, the potential long-term danger of "realists" is a bigger one than that of "nutjobs".

I beg to differ.I was once a floss advocate. I used to spread the good word and the good motivation to switch to floss. I managed to convert a few peeps, and also managed to get floss replace closed software in my clients environnements (like patrol -> nagios). I'm still working on the later, yet I've stopped talking about that to relatives. Nowaday I just refuse to support windows when asked.

Want to know why ? I've been disgusted by the evengelist. I just dont want to be associated to these. I realy think the "nutjobs" have crossed the line of decency. Imho, their position against closed source software is unmaintainable and doesnt stand up. I do understand why Exophase have choosed closed-source (read about gpsp piratcy if you dont get it). And I do believe that there is more reason to do that choice. Ultimatly, freetard are tring to remove freedoms from the devs to get more for themself. They area trying to ignore that coding take time and money. Beside a forced freedom on users is not any better than a walled garden. In fact, in some way, a distribution like gnusense is not any better than OSX : a walled garden. How removing the right to choose can equal more freedom ?

The last time I met RMS, he argued me that my work as an oracle DBA was a shame for someone listening to the FSF words. I tried to convince him that this position allowed me to help others switching to freesoftware giving him a few examples from my personnal experience. Yet that wasn't enough : I was working with Oracle software, how could I reprensent something else then the devil in his eyes ? He argued that I should quit my job to get a good one. I replied you mean flipping burgers, 'cause there is not much freesoftware position available ? He replied : still better than what you're doing... That day I lost my soul. That day I realized that maybe linus was right all along.

Believe me "nutjobs" are doing way more harm than good.

PS : I was thinking about you when I said "floss advocate" in my previous post, dont make me think otherwise please

 

[moxie]

Every ideological current that has something interesting to say, tends to attract some hard-core "nutjobs" who defend those ideas in a way that can be counterproductive.

On the other hand, every interesting ideological current also tends to have a subcurrent of "realists" who want to water down the ideology in order to be more "acceptable" to the mainstream or to be more "productive" and be more successful in the short term.

In the context of FOSS, you could say that RMS and the FSF are the "nutjobs", while ESR and the Open Source Initiative are the "realists".

Considering what I know about ESR, I'm not sure I'd classify him as a lesser nutjob than RMS, just on a completely different end of the scale

I am not entirely happy with going around calling people "nutjobs", though, but let's go with the flow for a while:

I think you're wrong. There is a distiction between being hardline principled and being a nutjob, and the difference is amongst other things how you treat other people. Yes, every movement has people from all over the spectrum, and they have different roles to fill. The pragmatists are needed on the ground to weasel the ideas into existing institutions, into the mind of muggles and wherever there is a need to insidiously change the world in the slow, practical way. The principled, hardline person is necessary for keeping track of the goals of the movement, leading internal discussion about what and where the push ought to be next, writing articles and dealing in political opinion, and so on. When we go into the nutjob category is when we start treating people who are not agreeing with us as some sort of lesser humans.

Why isn't Kevin over there agreeing with us? The hardline principled person would possibly say that this is because he has other priorities, does not see the world from the same perspective, has other political goals - That is, acknowledging that Kevin is a (more or less) rational person as oneself, and that Kevin has reasons to believe things the way he does just as the hlp person has his reasons. The nutjob assumes that Kevin does not agree because Kevin is either:

* Uninformed. This is handled by telling Kevin "The facts" about "How It Is", under the assumption that as soon as Kevin gets to be informed, he will surely agree.

* Stupid. This is handled by repeating said facts, but more slowly, or by joking about how Kevin really doesn't have all his cards in the reader.

* Morally deficient. This is when you tell him that if he had a conscience, he should switch jobs or other stupid stuff like that

* Actively evil. That is when you tell him he'll burn in hell, wish him a bullet in his head, or rejoice when he dies.

The nutjob confuses his beliefs with The Objective Truth, and other people are valued as objects in the quest for the acceptance of and spreading of The Truth, not as rational subjects in and of themselves. And if it is something that will turn people off and away, it is being treated as inferior objects. This is not a problem for the nutjob, since there is a solutione for each of the possible objects (Inform the uninformed, Castigate the morally deficient, ignore the stupid and fight the evils), but it is a problem for any movement that does not want to come across as a band of marauding crusaders.

 

[diligentcircle]

Like I said before, I haven't even argued for free software here. Any claims that I am behaving like this religious friend mentioned are baseless.

Moxie, you cut out half of a paragraph[0] and replaced it with "loads of text". Half of a paragraph! Only a couple of sentences! What's more, the part that you cut out was the part where I denied the situation required for your comparison to be reasonable being true or having ever been true.

I challenge you to find posts of mine about free software which were irrelevant or unwarranted. Not just on this forum, but anywhere. I use the same username everywhere, so if I'm really like this religious friend, it should be easy. The problem is, it's impossible, because I have never been like that.

[0] It was followed by a bulleted which was also cut out, but I made it clear that this was a separate thing regarding specific points that you made.

 

[sebt3]

Like I said before, I haven't even argued for free software here.

Let me the first to say : BS !There are tons of threads here where you've preached the "RIGHT" way for devs. You even admited it there : http://boards.openpandora.org/index.php/topic/13014-stellar-a-freelibreopen-source-game-maker-replacement/?p=245550

That, or you're telling us that you only preached for FSF but not argued, but that's an other point...

Any claims that I am behaving like this religious friend mentioned are baseless.

Simply googling you nick show otherwise...

 

[diligentcircle]

Let me the first to say : BS !
There are tons of threads here where you've preached the "RIGHT" way for devs. You even admited it there : http://boards.openpandora.org/index.php/topic/13014-stellar-a-freelibreopen-source-game-maker-replacement/?p=245550


That, or you're telling us that you only preached for FSF but not argued, but that's an other point...

Where I come from, that's what we call a "joke". It's something you say which is supposed to be funny. I thought I made that clear by mentioning the "Church of Emacs". To quote RMS:

Warning: taking the Church of Emacs (or any church) too seriously may be hazardous to your health.

Simply googling you nick show otherwise...

Why not show the results, then? What I see when I search my nick with Startpage are my old YouTube channel, the topic for my Minetest server, my Project: Starfighter port on the Pandora, and a bug report for SuperTuxKart. (That last one was when I still used Windows, by the way.) No "preaching".

 

[moxie]

Moxie, you cut out half of a paragraph[0] and replaced it with "loads of text". Half of a paragraph! Only a couple of sentences! What's more, the part that you cut out was the part where I denied the situation required for your comparison to be reasonable being true or having ever been true.

 I was mainly concerned with the quote to point to the right post by you. The "lots of text" is supposed to indicate everything that came after, and the point would have been equal by cutting everything out and leaving just the quote and the [...lots of text...] thing. The point is your whole post. And those before and after it.

Where I come from, that's what we call a "joke". It's something you say which is supposed to be funny. I thought I made that clear by mentioning the "Church of Emacs". To quote RMS:

 Assuming that your audience is well enough versed in the writings/sayings of RMS so that they ought to know that "Church of Emacs" signifies something that is not serious is a part of the problem. Not realizing that the paragraph pointed out by Sebt3 most likely is the second is another.

 

[comradekingu]

I knew supertux was the killer app.

 

[ZXDunny]

I knew supertux was the killer app.

That's "Gnu/SuperTux" to you, my lad.

D.

 

[_wb_]

Every ideological current that has something interesting to say, tends to attract some hard-core "nutjobs" who defend those ideas in a way that can be counterproductive.

On the other hand, every interesting ideological current also tends to have a subcurrent of "realists" who want to water down the ideology in order to be more "acceptable" to the mainstream or to be more "productive" and be more successful in the short term.

In the context of FOSS, you could say that RMS and the FSF are the "nutjobs", while ESR and the Open Source Initiative are the "realists".

Considering what I know about ESR, I'm not sure I'd classify him as a lesser nutjob than RMS, just on a completely different end of the scale

I am not entirely happy with going around calling people "nutjobs", though, but let's go with the flow for a while:

I think you're wrong. There is a distiction between being hardline principled and being a nutjob, and the difference is amongst other things how you treat other people. Yes, every movement has people from all over the spectrum, and they have different roles to fill. The pragmatists are needed on the ground to weasel the ideas into existing institutions, into the mind of muggles and wherever there is a need to insidiously change the world in the slow, practical way. The principled, hardline person is necessary for keeping track of the goals of the movement, leading internal discussion about what and where the push ought to be next, writing articles and dealing in political opinion, and so on. When we go into the nutjob category is when we start treating people who are not agreeing with us as some sort of lesser humans.

OK, that's a good point and I should have been more careful to make that distinction. I sympathize with "hardline principled" people (at least when I agree mostly with their ideas), but not with nutjobs like you describe them. But often the principled hardliners tend to be described as nutjobs by their opponents, in an effort to discredit ideas by discrediting the people who spread them.

 

[ZXDunny]

Every ideological current that has something interesting to say, tends to attract some hard-core "nutjobs" who defend those ideas in a way that can be counterproductive.

On the other hand, every interesting ideological current also tends to have a subcurrent of "realists" who want to water down the ideology in order to be more "acceptable" to the mainstream or to be more "productive" and be more successful in the short term.

In the context of FOSS, you could say that RMS and the FSF are the "nutjobs", while ESR and the Open Source Initiative are the "realists".

 Considering what I know about ESR, I'm not sure I'd classify him as a lesser nutjob than RMS, just on a completely different end of the scale

I am not entirely happy with going around calling people "nutjobs", though, but let's go with the flow for a while:

I think you're wrong. There is a distiction between being hardline principled and being a nutjob, and the difference is amongst other things how you treat other people. Yes, every movement has people from all over the spectrum, and they have different roles to fill. The pragmatists are needed on the ground to weasel the ideas into existing institutions, into the mind of muggles and wherever there is a need to insidiously change the world in the slow, practical way. The principled, hardline person is necessary for keeping track of the goals of the movement, leading internal discussion about what and where the push ought to be next, writing articles and dealing in political opinion, and so on. When we go into the nutjob category is when we start treating people who are not agreeing with us as some sort of lesser humans.

 OK, that's a good point and I should have been more careful to make that distinction. I sympathize with "hardline principled" people (at least when I agree mostly with their ideas), but not with nutjobs like you describe them. But often the principled hardliners tend to be described as nutjobs by their opponents, in an effort to discredit ideas by discrediting the people who spread them.

Good job I'm not an opponent of FOSS then! I just don't like people who do what Onpon does; even more so when they're blind to the fact that they're doing it... And I get really sarcastic when they refuse to acknowledge that they are doing it.

D.

 

[diligentcircle]

Assuming that your audience is well enough versed in the writings/sayings of RMS so that they ought to know that "Church of Emacs" signifies something that is not serious is a part of the problem. Not realizing that the paragraph pointed out by Sebt3 most likely is the second is another.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Church+of+Emacs

This shouldn't be too much to ask considering that I opened the next paragraph with "On a more serious note".

If it really was a response to the second paragraph, that makes no sense at all. The second paragraph was a congratulation for the GL to GL ES wrapper that I read about and a statement that I don't really like the Pandora any more. Sebt claimed that that post was where I "admitted" to "preach[ing] the 'RIGHT' way for devs". Only the first paragraph fits that claim, and of course, it was a joke.

 

[sebt3]

Where I come from, that's what we call a "joke". It's something you say which is supposed to be funny.

In french we have a saying that would translate as : in every good joke there's a bit of truth (dans toutes bonnes blagues il y a un fond de vérité). In this specific case, it's more than a bit.

Why not show the results, then? What I see when I search my nick with Startpage are my old YouTube channel, the topic for my Minetest server, my Project: Starfighter port on the Pandora, and a bug report for SuperTuxKart. (That last one was when I still used Windows, by the way.) No "preaching".

That's just one hit : http://boards.openpandora.org/index.php/topic/10968-dragonbox-opensource-coding-competition-rules-draft/?p=205767Want more ?

Assuming that your audience is well enough versed in the writings/sayings of RMS so that they ought to know that "Church of Emacs" signifies something that is not serious is a part of the problem.

To be fair, if you know RMS you'ld probably know this too : http://stallman.org/saintignucius.jpg

 

[_wb_]

Why not show the results, then? What I see when I search my nick with Startpage are my old YouTube channel, the topic for my Minetest server, my Project: Starfighter port on the Pandora, and a bug report for SuperTuxKart. (That last one was when I still used Windows, by the way.) No "preaching".

That's just one hit : http://boards.openpandora.org/index.php/topic/10968-dragonbox-opensource-coding-competition-rules-draft/?p=205767
Want more ?

What's wrong with that post? All he's saying is that he does not want to participate in a contest if it has certain rules. He's explaining his reasoning too. I don't see the problem.