21 Jul
2012
21 Jul
'12
11:11 p.m.
On 07/22/2012 09:58 AM, Lisi wrote:
I was at a local LUG meeting today and was very
distressed that the
above view should be expressed, and forcefully. I found it
distressing because that is quite some allegation - that we and Mate
users and Cinnamon users etc., (all splinter groups) are actually
damaging Linux, doing it harm.
That's because LUG == Linux User's Group, not Freedom User's Group. Its an
incredibly stupid thing to say, not only because it isn't true, but because none of
the software involved in the argument *is* Linux. People thus persuaded are losers, and
lusers. They have already accepted an economic model that their perceived competitors
pretend, but in which they themselves do not believe.
There is only one requirement for software proliferation and dominance, and companies like
Microsoft know it. Promiscuity[1]. Software diversity is the sign that you are
succeeding, not failing. If you aren't actively encouraging the mass distribution of
blue pills, and making sure people are taking them, they will start taking red pills. Its
as simple as that. Microsoft doesn't have to make sure their pills are getting
distributed as much as they have to make sure that every glass of water comes with a blue
pill by default. They have even started making sure they can attack anyone who wants red
pills nonetheless[2].
Operating systems like GNU and Android, that use the Linux kernel have taken over every
single market into which they have been introduced, except the desktop. Vendor lock in is
and has been the only bar preventing mass adoption.
The fact that we are free to digress and disagree is
why I like open
source so much. Take away that freedom and we might as well all use
Windows.
I agree with you completely. What you are saying that you value your freedom most. If
that's true, stop endorsing "open source". "Open source" is a
greasy weaselly term invented by individuals trying very hard to endear themselves to
businessmen and financiers that do not want to leave our freedom alone and unmolested.[3]
LUGs are filled to the brim with trendy hipsters jumping around and regurgitating
"open source" vomit and attacking anyone who advocates the value of freedom with
ideas like diversity in desktop environment is hurting the adoption of GNU+Linux. It's
nonsense. It just isn't true.
Since Linux without its freedom would not be Linux,
nothing would
seem to me more terminally harmful to Linux than to destroy that
freedom.
Freedom is not something that can be applied to software, because its just code. Code is
not self-actualizing. People have freedom and need to have software that includes source
code and terms that permit unrestricted use, study, modification, and redistribution to
prevent our freedom from being infringed. If you or I cannot use GNU+Linux with our
freedom intact, that is terminally harmful to us.
[1] http://labnol.blogspot.com/2007/07/we-love-microsoft-software-piracy-in.html
[2]
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/reality-check-microsoft-charging-vendor…
[3] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html