Public humilation of Joseph Carter
[Note that I'm only taking an inflammatory tone because you've adopted
one towards me, simply because my idea reminds you of James', and you
don't like the way James acted in the past. Drop it, start acting
like a human being towards me, and I'll treat you nicely again.
I'm running a little experiment to see if you can take as much ad
hominem and condescension as you dish out:
Continue acting like an ignorant asshole that isn't willing to
consider the merits of my idea, and I'll continue telling you you're
acting like an ignorant asshole. There's a reason why I voted against
you as Project Leader... you show a tendency to leap to snap
judgements of ideas you don't understand, and disengage your logical
mind from that point on, falliciously assuming that your opponents' ad
hominem proves that you're right.
I've got news for you, Joseph. Just because James acted like an
asshole doesn't mean his idea is wrong. He just got frustrated by
your childish, irrational, ignorant, argumentative replies to his
ideas.
I hope this flame is strong enough to help you see your reaction for
what it is: ``Oh my god! Peoples' insults really get my goat, I lose
my temper, and then my contributions to the debate degrade in quality
until they're less than worthless! I'd better not take things so
personally, if I want people to respect me!'']
>>>>> Joseph Carter writes:
JC> The keyring is kinda important to us and happens to be in (you
JC> guessed it!) CONTRIB! Lesson: Don't judge a package by where you
JC> find it.
I presume it'll be moved into main when it uses gpg? If so, then I'm
happy to continue ignoring `contrib'. Stale keys don't bother me... I
never use them anyway. I only use pgp because I have to in order to
upload to Debian. I'll start verifying them when we all use gpg.
JC> Thank you for arguing my point, that moving packages out of main
JC> (and out of Debian as a result) does limit their availability.
[Another editorial comment... why does it matter so much to you that I
think that one of your ideas has merit. That doesn't make the rest of
your ideas any less stupid and irrational, or any more meritorious.]
I have never argued to the contrary. I'm not proposing to move things
out of `main', only to create a separate `pure' distribution that
contains only symlinks to `main'. A major flaw of James and Branden's
initial suggestion was that nobody will ever agree to gutting `main'.
Creating a separate distro that is a proper subset of `main' fixes
this bug in their suggestion.
JC> Debian doesn't guarantee the packages you install will be of any
JC> use to you, only that you don't need non-free software on your
JC> system to compile and run it. If you can't find an ICQ server,
JC> That's Not My Problem.
That's an awfully careless way to look at the issue. I find it
revolting that you think your own irresponsibility when it comes to
Debian's quality translates into *me* as a naive end-user ``needing a
psychiatrist.''
I'm sure every other newbie out there appreciates your attitude, and
wishes more Debian developers thought like you do. Maybe you should
make APT illegal, because of the fact that dselect works fine for you,
and therefore it is Not Your Problem. [heavy sarcasm]
I'd rather help those newbies out, rather than giving them loaded guns
so that they can shoot themselves in the foot.
I'm not talking about trying to force you to do the work or forcing
people to use `pure', I'm talking about your irrational obstruction of
my desire to do useful work (i.e. create and maintain `pure'), and to
make it available to others. Who's being fascist *now*, Joseph?
JC> Of course, looking at the code for the ICQ server in question,
JC> it's too buggy to be useful as a practical server. If that's not
JC> good enough, now not only do you want a free server but you want
JC> a free server of a certain quality.
Nope. All I want is a free server that any Debian maintainer wants to
package, and put into `main' (regardless of its stability). If nobody
does it, (probably due to taking pride in ones work, and refusing to
package buggy software) then ICQ clients don't make it into `pure'.
Period.
If somebody wants to put an ICQ client into `pure', then it becomes
their responsibility to also put an ICQ server into (at least) `main'.
JC> I don't think I need to argue that arbitrary decisions of whether
JC> or not some software is good enough to affect its use in Debian
JC> are absolutely horrible and I would hope no developer in his
JC> right mind would allow that.
Since when is it an ``arbitrary decision'' for *every one* of over 300
Debian developers to decide that the free ICQ server is not worth
packaging?!!
>> Isn't `contrib' *designed* to help these kinds of people out?
JC> No.
Okay, thanks for arguing my point, which still stands:
>> If members of the Project vote that it isn't, then I've proposed
>> making a new category. [`pure']
JC> You're free to propose this, but like James' proposal it's going
JC> to require a vote.
You say that like you have religious faith in the fact that I'll be
voted down. Geez. Can we spell ``closed mind''?
Sorry, but you're gonna eat your words, Joseph. By the time I'm done
mopping the floor with you, using my highly *rational* arguments,
you'll be *begging* me to work on `pure'.
>> The point of discussing this on debian-policy is so that we can
.> *constructively* refine the ideas. Flames don't help anybody.
JC> Why? Well, james acted before he started the discussion.
``But, MOM... James started it!''
Shut up, brat.
JC> That annoyed me a bit, but I'll get over it I'm sure.
[Another editor's note: the following sentence is meant in all
sincerity. I've been rude and sarcastic for the rest of this mail,
but this part isn't.]
I'm glad to hear this. It gives me hope that we can come to a mutual
understanding, and you'll actually look at the merits of his *idea*
(and therefore mine), not its presentation, nor its presenter.
JC> However I strongly disagree with the change being discussed.
You still haven't offered me any compelling reasons why *my* change is
bad (creating `pure' rather than tossing things out of `main'). All
you've proven is that you don't understand my idea, because I *fully*
understand your objections. I had the same ones when Branden and
James first started talking, mostly because they came across too
heavy-handed.
I got over my initial reaction, and saw the merit in their idea. I
improved it, and contributed my results. I offer you the challenge of
trying to do the same. If something in my idea seems fascist, then
*fix it* for God's sake, don't just stand in the corner and saying
``... but it's wrong, but it's wrong, but it's wrong, but it's
wrong...''
Submit a clear bug report, produce a patch, or shut the hell up and
live with it. Childish whining will not be tolerated, and by your
reply to `pure', you've demonstrated that you're more interested in
childish whining than in understanding what James, Branden, and I am
saying.
JC> Very strongly in fact. I believe it can only be an arbitrary
JC> determination based on what a small number of individuals know
JC> (or think they know which is far more dangerous) without any real
JC> balance to be sure that their arbitrary decision fits anyones
JC> morals but their own.
Ahem. ``A small number of individuals'' == over three hundred Debian
developers. If that's a ``small number'', then what do you consider a
*large* number?
JC> I object to what I feel is the creation of a double standard.
JC> The software is free enough for the DFSG. It doesn't have any
JC> dependancy on any non-free software either in Debian or that you
JC> must yourself install. It's perfectly free.
You idea of `perfect' seems much weaker than mine. Perfection is
something that can never be attained. The DFSG is just an
approximation that needs to evolve as we learn more.
Oh, maybe I'm wrong. I must have been out worshipping the golden calf
the day that God handed down the DFSG from Mount Sinai, written in
stone. [heavy sarcasm]
JC> And up until a week ago, it would have been accepted into main no
JC> problem.
Times have changed. Human slavery was accepted up until a century
ago. White supremicism was accepted up until a few decades ago.
Non-free software was accepted up until a few years ago.
What's your point?
JC> I object to what I feel would be a policy which narrows the
JC> definition of "truly free" software beyond that which the social
JC> contract and DFSG currently provide.
Then you've proven yourself to be a legalist, and not somebody who is
capable of actually *writing* policy. Policy writers have to be
flexible and dynamic, understanding that the status quo is only our
current approximation of perfection.
I'm proposing a distribution that may be called `pure' or `holy', but
if you actually *read* my proposal, you'd see that I meant it in a
funny, self-deprecating way, placing no judgement on people who
continue to use `main', `contrib', or even `non-free.'
You, on the other hand are taking yourself *far* too seriously.
Drop the holier-than-thou attitude, or get off the list, asshole.
You're interfering in important work, and none of us have the time to
waste bickering with you.
JC> And so far what I have seen indicates that the intent is to do
JC> this without changing anything other than policy. I see an
JC> attempt to change the interpretation of the social contract,
JC> that's not a policy change.
[Since by now my point has been made, I'll use a lot of obscenity for
the rest of this mail. That should force you to take me less
seriously and read my ideas for their own merit, or else have a brain
aneurism, die, and leave us alone to discuss things peacefully.]
Listen, dickwad... JAMES DID NOT PROPOSE ANYTHING! Neither did I,
fuckhead. We just put forth an idea and opened the floor to
discussion.
We explicitly said that we weren't going to actually *do* anything
until the policy list arrived at some kind of clear understanding of
the issues.
At what point did you decide to put your head up your ass, and kick
madly at anybody who tried to get close enough to help you out of that
uncomfortable position of ignorance?
Whatever made you think that my mail about `pure' was anything but a
friendly attempt to increase peoples' understanding of the issues? At
what point did you label me a fascist, and use that as an excuse to
be condescending?
JC> And I object to changing our definition of free software to be
JC> what it is now with the added restriction that the software must
JC> be determined to be useful with other free software (or at least
JC> without any non-free software...)
Oh, fuck you. None of us said we were actually going to do that, we
were just examining the ``what if'' scenarios.
JC> See my post regarding TrueType for one single example of
JC> something which I have seen nobody able to argue that they can
JC> create a TTF with only free software (other than the argument
JC> that they could use beav and make the bytes be what they want
JC> them to be by hand...) So you're going to say taht ttf packages
JC> like xfstt and freetype go into contrib? What sort of ripple
JC> effect does this have?
JC> And where do we draw the line? WinNT has its own filesystem.
JC> The Linux kernel itself provides a module for accessing this
JC> thing, yet it is impossible to even create it without WinNT or
JC> possibly some other non-free software (since I think Partition
JC> Magic can now create NTFS partitions..) You want to argue that
JC> LINUX moves into contrib? No of course not. How about lilo
JC> which requires your non-free PC BIOS?
JC> Where do you draw the line, and since you're the one who wants to
JC> change things from how they are now, how can you justify what
JC> you're doing and respond to the argument that you are creating a
JC> double-standard. I would say that current policy is pretty cut
JC> and dry. We have a definition of free software, based on the
JC> license of the software. We have agreed that main includes
JC> things which fit that definition. We have agreed that contrib is
JC> for software which is free but requires installation of non-free
JC> software to use it or compile it. That's pretty simple IMO.
JC> What you're after is arbitrary and boils down to letting
JC> currently tree people decide for all of 400+ of us whether or not
JC> our packages are free enough for their tastes. And james
JC> specifically said that he refuses to install a package into main
JC> which he doesn't personally think is free enough, no matter what
JC> anyone else says or decides. He has said taht if someone else
JC> wants to, they are welcome to.
JC> However, this is not the first time someone has decided that they
JC> simply are not going to do something no matter what anyone says.
JC> At least one person has applied to become a developer and their
JC> application sat collecting virtual dust because the two people
JC> responsible for these both decided they weren't going to process
JC> the application. Essentially, they rejected the application but
JC> dodged responsibility for rejecting it by simply not processing
JC> it and leaving it "pending"....
JC> I've already seen the results of a final decision belonging to a
JC> small group of people with no real chance for appeal with the new
JC> maintainer team. While I realize the archive maintainers have
JC> the same sort of final authority without any real appeals
JC> process, james is essentially asking for us to agree that he
JC> should be allowed to make an arbitrary decision of a package's
JC> freeness. His first demonstration: a package which came up on
JC> -legal and whose license was actually changed so it could be
JC> uploaded to main!
JC> Arguably in the case of the archive there is SOME appeals
JC> process, but it certainly can't be easy. It's quite probably
JC> likely to boil down to the same appeals process there is for the
JC> new maintainer team: Try and somehow convince the people who have
JC> the final authority on the subject to change their minds. Well,
JC> without getting any more personal than this already is, it's not
JC> bloody likely.
And how stupid is Joseph? How many words does he have to put into my
mouth so that he can refute them? When will he learn what `strawman'
means? How many times does he have to repeat the *same* idea as if
*I'm* the one who's incapable of understanding?
My `pure' idea refuted all your arguments long before you presented
them. You're just too pigheaded to understand it. I'll bother
explaining the details to you only after you've demonstrated that
you'll bother listening to me.
Teacher: ``Okay, class, today we are going to learn about
calculus...''
Pupil #1 [interrupting]: ``But teacher... calculus must be inherently
flawed, because it's *impossible* to add up an infinite number of
infintessimals, and it's *impossible* to know the exact tangent of a
line at a given point.''
Teacher: ``No, trust me, it works. Let me show you the reasons...''
Pupil #1 [interrupting]: ``NO, NO, NO! It's IMPOSSIBLE!''
Teacher: ``... just a second, little Joseph. You haven't seen the
reasons yet. Just let me write it on the board...''
Pupil #1: ``NO, NO, NOOOOOOOOO! YOU AREN'T LISTENING TO ME! YOU'RE
STUPID, AND I KNOW MATH BETTER THAN YOU DO.''
Pupil #2 [to Pupil #1]: ``Shut the hell up, fuckhead. I'm trying to
listen to what the Teacher has to say.''
Pupil #1 [to nobody in particular]: ``EVERYBODY HATES ME! THEY'RE ALL
IGNORANT AND NASTY AND SPITEFUL AND MEAN! I KNOW MATH BEST! CALCULUS
IS IMPOSSIBLE!''
Pupil #3 [to Pupil #2]: ``I can't take this anymore...''
[Pupil #3 takes out a handgun, and blows Pupil #1's head off. Silence
in the classroom.]
Teacher [to Pupil #3]: ``Thank you.'' [addresses rest of class]
``Calculus was discovered independently by Newton and Leibnitz....''
[curtain]
JC> I signed up for the ideals and definitions Debian has now. I'm
JC> certainly free to voice my objection to those things changing am
JC> I not?
You certainly are. But do it in a rational way, or you'll make a lot
of enemies among people who are more rational than you are.
>> The fact that the likes of James Troup and Branden Robinson *care*
>> about this idea should be a BIG HINT that maybe, just *maybe* it
>> might have some hidden shred of merit. Obviously you don't value
>> their opinions highly enough to try to understand where they're
>> coming from before you flame.
JC> I considered the idea. I seriously did.
No you didn't. If you did, you'd understand how all your arguments
are strawman.
JC> But I quickly found that I couldn't agree with it. I haven't
JC> even heard RMS suggesting that something like tik is evil. aj is
JC> going to ask him about that, however all I can say is that I am
JC> going to be VERY amused if RMS has no problem with packages such
JC> as tik! I'll save that flame until I hear an answer from him
JC> though.
Sorry, sucker. RMS is no longer blazing the freedom trail, he's one
of the giants whose shoulders we're standing on.
If RMS remained on the cutting edge of freedom talk, then he'd be too
unstable to be a leader. As it stands, he's a trustworthy
spokesperson for freedom, but not an innovator any more.
Originally, RMS thought that copyleft for non-software information was
a bad idea. Does that mean it's not a good thing?
When folks like Michael Stutz, Lyno Sullivan, and I put forward
*rational* arguments for extending copyleft to non-software
information, he accepted the idea. Now he's just waiting for the dust
to settle before he puts his weight behind a specific license.
If you always follow RMS as your guide, then you're doomed to always
being a follower.
Don't follow me, either... just weigh the ideas logically, and figure
out what seems best.
JC> He might agree with james---though this wouldn't be the first
JC> time RMS and I disagreed on something and it won't be the last
JC> I'm almost sure.
Oooh... even better.
``If the world's authority on free software agrees with me, then I'll
tell everybody that they were stupid for disagreeing with me. If he
disagrees with me, then I'll still tell everybody that they were
stupid for disagreeing with me, just not as loudly.''
I know that RMS is totally rational, and it's only a matter of time
before he agrees with me on this particular issue. I may have to
present some clearly-thought-out arguments to him to silence any
objections he might have, but that's alright.
All you can say is that he's irrational, but authoritative. I pity
you in your confusion about freedom, and hope that you manage to
figure out for yourself that RMS has *always* been totally
rational... if he ever appears irrational, it's because nobody's given
him a well-thought-out argument, or because they aren't interested in
actually listening to him.
>> Maybe you shouldn't decide on how you're going to vote, until you
>> actually read the polished proposal (which hasn't even been
>> written yet) lest you be forced to eat some humble pie.
JC> As long as the proposal is based on what I consider a flawed
JC> premise, I couldn't support it.
That's fine. Just be prepared for a premise that you initially
thought was flawed to turn out to be sound.
>> Don't get me wrong... I've had lots and lots of that ego-crushing
>> pie in the past, but at least I'm trying to understand where
>> others come from, including you. The anger that I'm expressing at
>> you is equally directed at myself, for the times I act like the
>> asshole you're acting like right now.
JC> It could be worse: I could be an asshole about it and also be
JC> wrong. =>
Sorry to say, but you're being an asshole about it, and you're also
wrong. ;)
Reread what I actually proposed about `pure' with an open mind, ask
straightforward, non-combative questions about it if there's something
in it you disagree with, and then we'll discuss about the
implications.
Until then, may you sleep with a burr up your butt, so that you don't
become a *complacent* wrong asshole, which is *far* worse. I actually
quite like argumentative wrong assholes like you are right now,
because you give me a chance to vent. Now I'll sleep soundly. :)
--
Gordon Matzigkeit <gord@fig.org> //\ I'm a FIG (http://www.fig.org/)
Committed to freedom and diversity \// I use GNU (http://www.gnu.org/)
Reply to: