=- Jing Xue wrote on Wed 17.Oct'07 at 22:38:05 -0400 -=
> > > Because coders are supposed to code solutions into a tool, not
> > > to code their ideology into it.
> >
> > Why is that so?
> > It's not like you're forced such a ideology-loaded tool or are
> > entitled to use the work of somebody else against his will, or
> > are you? ;)
> > Don't like it as it is? Do it yourself.
>
> //sigh, why is it that at the end of every one of these debates,
> there is always this boiler plate answer that awaits?
Maybe because it's a fundamental position diametrically opposed to
its rival, and it expresses best where the difference in
expectations and commitment are?! ;)
There is more to tools than just producing them.
> I thought OSS was about the freedom of choice, and about letting
> (not forcing) more and more people realize that they do have more
> choices.
Whatever OSS is about, I don't feel limited to OSS nor what
individual personal opinions like Linus' say; it's just that, their
personal opinion. Some happen to be more widespread than others, but
as stated elsewhere, mass and instant/built-in usage is not enough
justification, or why don't we all use M$ for everything?
> I never thought of OSS as a path to the elitism of "I can do it
> myself, and you can't", {...}
Not by intention, but by consequence of commitment, which happens to
be rather the exception than the norm.
If everybody suddenly switched to use mutt and OL were the rare
crowd, I guess none of the "elitists" would switch just to remain
the minority.
> Do you really rewrite every piece of software you find not up to
> your expectations, yet you cannot convince the developer to change
> it because the developer does not agree with you philosophically?
No need to rewrite, but I patch things and offer them.
(when the little skill and opportunities that I have permit ;)
> This is _not_ about the attitude of the user's, but that of the
> developer's.
It's about both, because there is no strict border-line.
Every dev is a user, every user can become a dev, and patchers like
me (or rather doing more than I) live on that line all the time.
Everyone can, must and does make choices, be they conscious or not,
short-sighted or long, global or local.
> > There are obviously drawbacks for either imposing or refraining from
> > it, again a matter of preference of potentially resulting consequences.
>
> How can you call it a matter of preference, when the very choice
> of this "preference" itself may conflict with the fundamental
> value behind the ideology?
Because they operate on different levels.
It's like "intolerance against intolerance". Paradox? On 1st look,
but not senseless. By your reasoning nobody should stand up against
"intolerance", but is this what you want? When you're the one to
suffer from it?
> > > In my book of "good and bad", requesting a mail receipt is
> > > nowhere remotely close to spamming/trashing. 8-)
> >
> > Neither is it in mine, was just giving an example why it can be
> > reasonable/ necessary to think more about consequences of what you
> > release on the world ahead of time.
>
> Yes, it _can_ be reasonable. It is reasonable when the
> consequences are actually bad - as in your example. It _can_ also
> be unreasonable and in turn self-righteously imposing when the
> consequences are not even remotely close to being "bad".
Heh, you're you looking only at the immediate effects.
But there is more to it. There can be cases when too much good slips
in until it begins to produce bad results by the total effect, not
by the sum of the individuals.
--
© Rado S. -- You must provide YOUR effort for your goal!
EVERY effort counts: at least to show your attitude.
You're responsible for ALL you do: you get what you give.
