drummyfish {l Wrote}:Jastiv {l Wrote}:1. Ethics talk – Making money and supporting your family considered more important ethically. (by some people, not necessarily by the fsf)
2. Ethics talk – Games are for fun, not serious so they don’t need an ethics discussion.
Are these your opinions? or Stallman's? Or the FSF's? It's not clear from the writing. I'd have objections to these.
Jastiv {l Wrote}:1. Stallman deliberately choose not to have a family so he would not have to deal with that ethical dilemma. If he decided to be homeless or hole himself up in some MIT office, he would only harm himself. The fsf position is only that proprietary software is unethical, they do not actually go into detail about whether other ethical considerations are more important or not. Individual associate members have varying opinions on some issues (related to a hierarchy of ethics) but generally is is considered ok to use proprietary software to save someone's life.
Jastiv {l Wrote}:2. The second comment related to ethics, also relates to the other issue I have with the fsf, namely a lack of a strong free culture stance. Stallman always talks about software and other useful works (as if there is such a thing as a useless work) yeah, the useless works. They have recently clarified some of their positions on this. They actually think works of opinion should have ND licenses. (because else someone might put words in someones mouth pretending they have an opinion they do not have) They are neutral on cultural works and works for entertainment, especially if they aren't an important part of a software project.
Lyberta {l Wrote}:What? LGBT is not an organization. Can you give me links to what happened and what is wrong in your opinion?
Lyberta {l Wrote}:You know that we only got basic recognition after Stonewall riots? It's only when we said "fuck the police" and started marching, people started to change. That's how you fight for your rights. Every time.
Julius {l Wrote}: Or alternativly blowing up minor disagreements over approaches (PD vs. GPL for example). There is basically no better way to destroy an idea from within than that :(
Lyberta {l Wrote}:You mean proprietary games under Steam runtime? Don't think so.
fluffrabbit {l Wrote}:I think any argument related to first-time end users trying stuff out is more closely related to a mainstream culture this forum has shunned itself from.
fluffrabbit {l Wrote}:I feel like you're doing philosophical gymnastics to sway me to a perspective that others in this thread have already stated but that you're too polite to say directly. And I disagree.
I don't like Microsoft, I don't like the Android ecosystem, but at some fundamental level these things have some really awesome software if you can get past the bullshit.
As for init systems, who cares?
typical apps won't even notice.
I think there is a strong argument for a lighter init system when you consider all the daemons running on larger Linux distros, which you may not want.
But in my opinion, this issue is way more about software than it is about politics.
When you download Ubuntu, you know it's going to be political because Canonical wants to make money. You know what you're getting.
I don't separate OSS from FS. It's frustrating when people try to make a movement out of things.
I sometimes go to this forum to take refuge from all the proprietary crap I have to use, but there needs to be balance, and when things swing too far to the opposite extreme, I can recognize the difference between technical issues and whining. I'm not calling anyone here a whiner, but IMHO some folks go too far.
Most software issues are due to bad programming, not design decisions.
Most of the shit you put up with is incompetence disguised as politics.
fluffrabbit {l Wrote}:Less code is better code. Popularity may work on consumers, but we're programmers here. I think any argument related to first-time end users trying stuff out is more closely related to a mainstream culture this forum has shunned itself from. If you want to talk popularity, that we ain't.
Jastiv {l Wrote}:So don't give me this crap about developers don't care about popularity, they do care about popularity, .. a lot.
This is an oversimplification, I'm not against commercialism and neither is the FSF.
Someone else built that table-- and they reduced it from a movement-- a quest for independence and autonomy-- to a "development methodology".
Could you be more specific?
A bad design is an act of bad programming. A monolith is a fair compromise for a kernel, but modular software as a rule is still better. Experience ought to show that monolithic software is easier to sell, but it's easier to mess up. The growing trend from most things modular to most things monolithic is an unmitigated design disaster.
The question is, why would you want it to be apolitical on one side, when it is political on others?
For instance, why am I concerned with getting my game editor to work on java 11. I hate to think of some future hassle someone will have to go through to get things to work under java 8 instead.
Similarly, my project eventually stopped using cvs and moved to git. Why? Because sourceforge stopped support for cvs, and why did they do that? Because it lost the popularity wars. So don't give me this crap about developers don't care about popularity, they do care about popularity, .. a lot.
fluffrabbit {l Wrote}:This is an oversimplification, I'm not against commercialism and neither is the FSF.
But you're against Microsoft and IBM.
Before the DMCA, software in America was public domain by default.
I don't know about these claims of rewriting history, but it would seem to me that programmers just had fun with open source stuff back in the day.
A lot of businesses probably weren't entirely dependent upon software infrastructures at that point anyways. The golden years.
This thread has a good amount of whining in it.
A bad design is an act of bad programming. A monolith is a fair compromise for a kernel, but modular software as a rule is still better. Experience ought to show that monolithic software is easier to sell, but it's easier to mess up. The growing trend from most things modular to most things monolithic is an unmitigated design disaster.
This may be true in the case of kernels, but it's not a universal truism. I can think of counter-examples:
* Libraries are more reliable than servers running on your machine that programs make local connections to.
Games actually benefit from haphazardly throwing all the functionality into the main source file. If you abstract things out into separate libraries, the glue code adds up such that your program becomes overall more bloated and things are harder to find.
Because it's fun to play independent liberatarian in America. Sometimes it's better to not have outside influences on your own software.
I am aware that BSD predates a lot of things. Maybe it was more political back in the day, but things have died down and now
it doesn't have the same hot-headed debates that you usually see revolving around Linux.
I honestly can't figure out which aspect of this is a counter-example. Libraries are modular, but even if they weren't a "growing trend" doesn't mean that everything is now monolithic. I'm not sure what you're getting at. As for servers, this "cloud" business is more or less what I think you're talking about, but unless you mean something very different (and I honestly can't tell what you mean) then this is the worst analogy ever. Benefit of the doubt in full, but I don't know.
I wasn't aware of this, but I'll take your word for it.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest