On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 12:32:10PM -0300, Humberto Massa scribbled: [snip] > >> I just want to reemphasize this statement, because it's beautiful. > > > > You are hillarious :) Maybe you will become the Debian court jester? > > > > marek > > > > Marek, I don't have any opinion IRT you personally, but this mail > exchange was disrespectful, and in a non-called-for way. Only from your I can only agree :). Once again, I'm not sorry for kicking back when somebody kicks me first. > side. > > 1. IANADD (wannabe yet) but what makes me be a Debian user since slink > is the Debian SC punchline: Free Software. Free as in RMS-free, as in > DFSG-free, as in speech. I don't want, don't need no stinking > AutoCAD. You've got the right to. I've got the right not to support RMS's views. We're not a monastery, we're not monks who swear to obey the same rules and have the same views on the religious matters. > If (and it has happened) I need a CAD, I go with the free ones, and > implement whatever I miss or need at the moment from AutoCAD. There I gather you're a technical person, involved with computers professionally. My sister (and her architect/graphician friends) are using computers as _tools_ for their works - they don't really have incentive to spend countless hours learning something new just for the sake of (somebody else's) ideals. > are always alternatives, and the free alternatives are better to > society and to me. Non-negotiable. If Debian ditches the Free Again, you're speaking for yourself (and you have the right to, no doubts). But please do not impose your views and interpretations of the notion of 'free software' on others. That won't work. > Software concept, then it's time to me to ditch Debian. Finito. What _is_ the Free Software concept? And I'm not asking for your personal interpretation of it, I'm asking for a common definition without any personal sentiment attached. If you show me such definition and there will be no room for doubt, then I will gladly accept the definition as the one and only. Until then, let me (and others) have my/our own opinion. > 2. He is right, you know, IRT encouraging free alternatives. Qt, > remember? Not including it, not including KDE made both a free > alternative be developed (project Harmony) /and/ made Trolltech > backpedal and GPL the libraries. Why didn't this approach work with Microsoft then? :) > GNU, Linux, and Debian by extension, were created this way: I need a > Unixy OS. I can't pay USD5k for a Unixy OS; but wait; Ritchie and > Thompson created the real thing in a relatively short time... why > can't we? Let me remind you one thing. RMS does not endorse Debian anymore, it's not free enough according to his views. And another thing, the Linux kernel was _not_ created for FSF/GNU. One other thing. The free software world doesn't start/end with FSF/GNU and Linux. It would be perfectly doable these days to have a GNU-less, free unix-like operating system. > 2. (a) and BTW, if you tell me Harmony did not fly, I'll answer: why > should it? Trolltech GPL'd Qt, and its /raison/ /d'etre/ disappeared. > > http://primates.ximian.com/~miguel/gnome-history.html > > 3. IRT the P&P stuff: ok, here JW could have passed a little bit, but > not a lot. As a Debian user, I expect from you as a DD to uphold the > SC and abide the DFSG. As a consumer/citizen. You (Debian Project) > said so in your web site. As a human being I demand the right to free thinking, to reasoning, to having my own opinion, to interpretation. By nature, I'm a person who doesn't trust or believe or listen to dogmas nor take anything for granted. As Hamish said somewhere in the thread - accept that there are people in Debian who have their own opinions different to yours. Also, remember that differentiation is a Good Thing(tm) - it's a driving force of many human efforts. It was also said in this thread that competition is good - it doesn't only apply to software, hardware etc., but also to ideas, ideals, politics etc. So competitive cooperation is a _must_ for a successful project of any kind. If we all think alike, then sooner or later we will lose the touch with reality and end up detached from it. > I have full reasons to believe it. And, as I said in (1), if I don't And I have full reasons to doubt that the FSF/GNU way is a) the ONLY way, b) error free, c) beyond any doubt. Are you trying to deprive me of the right? If you think I shouldn't be part of Debian, go ahead and move a GR (or have somebody do it for you since you're not a DD yet) and let's have a vote. Until then, do not try to force me into your way of thinking, please. I haven't been in the free software movement for 2 months, it's been 13 years now, so I have every right to have my own opinion on it. > get what I want from Debian, I'll try to get it somewhere else. You're free to do so. See, that's where YOUR reasoning fails - you claim you have the right to do this, to think that etc. and yet you're trying to convince me that _my_ way is wrong and yours is the only right (well, convince is not a good word - you're trying to force me into it). How is that for freedom? > Even if IANAL and IANADD, being a paralegal /and/ a software > developer I do my best to dedicate part of my time and mind to d-d@ > and to d-l@. I intend to allocate a larger part of my time to be a > DD... and, if I make it, I know /I/ will uphold the SC and abide the > DFSG. Don't judge me and my upholding of DFSG, SC and free software. It was shown that people removing the tg driver broke the SC and if you support them, then I seriously doubt you read/understand the SC, I'm sorry. You are constantly stressing that _you_ will do that, or _you_ will think that. I applaud you for having such strong views and beliefs, but again - do not try to force your way on me. > This is just integrity; I'll do so until we change what is in > http://www.debian.org/ to other -- possibly evil -- stuff (when I'll > probably leave) Integrity? So you're saying that the lack of diversity and individualism is a virtue? Why does that bring some not so good ideologies to my mind? > So, answering your question, yeah, every single Debian user will be > the judge of your upholding the SC and abiding the DFSG. Including me > and JW. I think you have to cope with it. I can cope with it very well. Can YOU cope with a person who has their own opinion? Apparently not. Again, if you want me out of Debian, you can do it through the legal process available to DDs. Until then, I do not wish to hear you forcing me to change my thinking just because yours is different and, according to you, the only good one. > 4. Your "repeated paragraph" argument (IRT fragmentation of efforts) > does not hold water, either: the same could be said about Word, And here we go, another statement from you without a shade of doubt. Do you ever doubt in yourself? Do you allow the possibility that you might be wrong sometimes? And that there are people with different opinions in the world, but that doesn't mean their opinions are bad just by difference? > WordPerfect, AmiPro. Why doesn't Microsoft, Corel, and Lotus unite > their teams and make only one word processor? Sun and the OOo > developers could join, too... No, it couldn't be said so, my friend. I've already explained the idea of commercial competition for money. The free software world doesn't compete for money, so there is no reason to fragment the efforts with NO cooperation what so ever. > Duh!* The trivial answer: no two software products have the same > "vision", the same conceptual approach, the same technical or > implementation approach, ... They are not the same! XFree, Xorg, > FDo,... they share a lot of code, but they are still not the same! Thank you for illuminating me, but I think I knew about it. I don't feel like repeating my argument here again, go and read the mail where I explained my POV. > In fact, those very three projects you mentioned share more code and > had less development redundancy than the three word processors I Dude, do you really think that company A developing a product will go to company B developing a similar product and say "hey, guys. We have similar products only yours has a few features that ours doesn't. How about cooperating? You will give us the code we lack and we will tell you our ideas we have for future". Get real, the commercial software world is fundamentally different to the open source model. > mentioned. They were, as a set, better to the macro-economy of > software-making (less resources wasted, more diverse results > achieved) > > Just to make my point clear: there are no free alternatives to > AutoCAD and the others you mentioned because, at the present moment: > (a) no free-software-only user needed it; or (b) if somebody really another statement... Are you sure that NO free software only user needed them? Are you willing to say that having hundreds of millions of people in mind? And, let me remind you - _users_, not developers. > needed it, said person or entity is in the works of implementing what > it needs (it's not instantaneous, you know: if it was, project > Harmony would have disintegrated Qt) Oh, I must tell my sister that if she wants to use AutoCAD on Linux, she will have to learn coding. She should probably enroll to a CS course next year. > Ah, and one more point: some people/entities are not > free-software-only just for philosophical reasons. Some, p.ex. > third-world-govments (-: hehe :-), non-profit shops, foreign > non-USofA-friendly govments, have other many reasons to accept > free-software-only. > > > Have in mind I am disagreeing with you, but not bashing you. I don't see > reason for you to call me or anyone else a clown. Even the Duh!, in #4, Why are you defending JW? I called him a jester, not you. Or should I have sued him for falsely accusing me of using drugs? :P > paragraph 2, is retorical and directed to myself, not to you. Sure, I don't mind that. Keep in mind that if you bite me, I will bite back, though. If you accept that, then we're fine :) regards, marek
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature