Re: Bertrand Meyer challenges some open-source assumptions.
Stephen Frost wrote:
>
> On Wed, 31 May 2000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>
> > On Tue, May 30, 2000 at 05:33:49AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> > > It's not my problem. He is not me and he does not represent me in these
> > > or other interests. Claiming that everyone who supports free software
> > > feels this way is an obscene misrepresentation of not only myself, but
> > > anyone else excluding specifically him.
> >
> > Well, now you see the problem.
The problem is Meyer's, not Eric's. Meyer has difficulty separating the
ethical issues. One is not related to the other, despite an attempt by
him to tie them together. Clearly, anti-gun emotions are clouding his
reasoning on this. Since Meyer feels like an individual capability to
kill another is evil, anyone who holds an opposite view has too much
evil in him to have any acceptable basis of ethics with anything else.
> > Meyer says it's not clear that Stallman,
> > Torvalds etc don't hold the same view.
And it doesn't matter. In fact, were I either of them, my response to
the poor attack on free/open-software with the ad hominem approach would
be an explicit "no comment!"
> > Nobody claims that everybody
> > who supports free software likes guns, but nobody is saying otherwise
> > either.
And it doesn't matter. The issue of freedom or openness of software
is totally separate from the issue as to whether individuals have the
right to be equipped to kill another. I have very strong feelings about
the right to defend my family and my self, even with lethal force, and
not being required to depend on after-the-fact assistance and
enforcement
by the police, but I'm not _ever_ going to tie this to the free/open
software
issue.
> > And Raymond is a publicity engine for free software, so people
> > tend to think he represents most free software people. Quite reasonably so.
It is poor reasoning, rather, to reflect the personalities on the
theories
concerning software. In fact, there is an article in salon on the
"wild"
sexual proclivities of some free/open software people, notably Richard
Stallman,
but I'm not going to judge one issue by my distaste for the other.
> It is ad homminum (sp?).
Proper spelling above. It's Latin for "to the man". Hominus is
conjugated
with -em for the case.
> It's dealing in personalities instead of
> the issues, it's very poor writing because of this. It also evades the
> question, and seeing as how this person has a specific monetary gain from
> the fall of GPL'd software his comments are of very questionable validity.
I had great difficulty to endure reading Meyer's article, especially
through
his anti-gun based attack on Eric, and through him, on free/open
software;
his examination of the mores of Richard Stallman were equally tedious.
His essay had some good points and challenges, but frankly, it is hard
to remember the kernels because of all the bitter chaf.
Reply to: