Re: [OT] Freedom vs. entitlement (was Re: HOWTO enhance Debian by removing HAL)
On 2009-08-04_16:05:49, Siggy Brentrup wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 07:12 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > On 2009-08-04 06:14, Siggy Brentrup wrote:
> > >On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 18:13 +0200, Siggy Brentrup wrote:
> > >>On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 09:28 -0500, Chris wrote:
> > >
> > >>I am concerned about X's dependency on HAL. Years ago I was using my
> > >>SGI Indy with a superb SGI Monitor and US keyboard (brackets and
> > >>braces at the right places) to have up to 6 xterms onscreen; the
> > >>machine is too slow to do real work. I didn't yet recover far enough
> > >>to know for certain, but planning to run current sid on that box you
> > >>might hear my curses over the ocean when I find out I have to run HAL
> > >>or use ancient X.
> > >
> > >In case you didn't hear me:
> > >ARRRRRGS THIS @#%$?*@ XORG STUFF NOT ONLY DEPENDS ON HAL, moreover
> > >HAL forces me to install usbutils. USB 1.0 specs were released
> > >one year after this fine box was built!
> >
> > Sadly, at some point, software "outgrows" really old h/w, no matter
> > how good the box.
> >
> > >>>To me, the freedom is still there. I now have the freedom of either
> > >>>removing it or leaving it. The choice is still mine.
> > >>We'll see, my choices are: current X, no HAL.
> > >
> > >Where's my freedom, I'm stuck with ancient X if I don't want to
> > >run otherwise unused SW?
> > >
> >
> > The GPL gives you freedom to view, modify and use the source code.
>
> You state the obvious.
>
> > Your claim to a "freedom", though, is a misplaced sense of
> > entitlement to other people's volunteer efforts.
> >
> > IOW, by using the binaries that are a product of other people's
> > labor, you forfeit your "right" to complain about them doing what
> > they want to do in their spare time.
>
> With this argument we might as well make dash essential instead of
> bash and no I don't want to begin yet another discussion of that
> seemingly unsolvable issue.
>
> > >going to pin X to stable <grrrrr>.
> >
> > Rather, pin it to Lenny, so you don't bump to Squeeze when it goes
> > stable.
>
> *LOL* At least half a year before this happens (squezze not even
> freezed) I'll definitely be in a situation where I am able to rebuild
> X for mips from source w/o hal dependency.
Remember that HAL is an acronym for Hardware Abstraction Layer. The
idea of HAL has a long and successful history in computer engineering.
IBM has been particularly successful in applying HAL ideas to its
system 360 and AS400 lines of computers. It allows transitions in
hardware implementation to happen without having to 'backport' in order
to keep old hardware working.
You can, of course, choose to live without HAL, but I think you should
not be surprised if very few serious software developers choose not to
follow you. Most software developers have a desire for their software
to be used by a large number of people. It isn't a desire for money so
much as a desire for recognition by a community for a job well done.
To feed this desire, they tend to avoid getting bogged down in
commitments to perpetual maintenance on parts of the software that
they find uninteresting. HAL is a real boon to authors of successful,
meaning well used and popular, software.
What surprises me is how long this thread is. I would have thought that
your advocacy of a truly silly position would have been quietly ignored.
It is a mark of how smoothly things are running in the lives of large
numbers of Debian users that we find time to waste on this.
On your desire to keep your old software running: I have found that I
can replace my old hardware fairly regularly to keep myself 3 t0 5 yrs
behind the current situation by watching for computers sitting beside
dumpsters near college dormitories in the spring.
--
Paul E Condon
pecondon@mesanetworks.net
Reply to: