On 11/12/12 Eduardo Valle <[email protected]> wrote: > >Dear James > >Lobbies for the programmers that normally dont practice open data. >Ressonance ... Funny that was the only part you mention. :-)))
Well I don't feel qualified to add much about your other comments... So some more of my comments about the freedom involved with Linux: The Linux world is currently migrating away from initscripts/sysvinit to systemd. These load the various system services once the kernel etc has loaded. The former are implemented in shell script while the latter is implemented as C - reducing overhead. In Arch Linux for example, there's no choice, the former are deprecated and without "official support". I'm free to make hard work for myself or free to accept that the distribution developers don't want to make hard work for themselves by supporting both systems. Not such a great freedom. Frustrating considering it doesn't always allow me to turn off my computer, forcing me to "pull the plug" so to speak. But even this freedom is better than closed source. Whether or not I have the freedom to choose to spend the large amount of dedicated time necessary to learn the required skills isn't so much the fault of open source but society, my status in society, and my existing skill set, personality, upbringing and all the rest of it. All these things conspire to prevent me from continuing to use the old initscripts/sysvinit (not even sure which I was using!) causing me to take the path of least resistance - systemd. > >> Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 19:32:00 +0000 >> From: [email protected] >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] F(r)ee, Open (?) and Digital Culture(s) >> - slogans for selling on the databases age ? >> >> On 11/12/12 Eduardo Valle <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> >F(r)ee ? >> > >> >Lets us look on four levels: >> > >> >1) philosofical level -- what is to be free ? >> > >> >2) consumer level - Living under Intel Monopoly on Microprocessors, >> >Apple Monopoly in terms of video and cinema, HP Monopoly in terms of >> >printers, Linux monopoly and growing because of they are cheaper for >> >govermental institutions and commerce, etc and etc. >> > >> >3) administration level - ICANN dictatorship and their respective >> >agents on each country, IPV6 and their domain controls under the >> >hands of a few , etc and etc 4) on the industrial technological >> >level - who are controlling satellites transmissions on a >> >technological level, telecoms lobbies ,internet providers, etc and >> >etc >> > >> >. How can someone talk about freedom in that situation ? >> > >> > >> >Open (?) >> > >> >1) it is open for who ? for the ones that are programmers only ? >> >> It is open to non-programmers to perform the chore of >> documentation ;-) >> >> But say that the definition of openness can not be fulfilled due to >> programmers being the only people capable of exploiting that >> openness, then what is supposed to be done to make it more >> inclusive? Are programmers meant to write software which is.... >> um... more readily programmable? Probably not. Complex things can't >> be made simple without sacrificing the reasons for which they are >> complex. Is that why we now we have computers which are mere portals >> to commercial consumption. >> >> >> > >> >2) the majority of the ones that says that they are "open" dont even >> >think and practice open data. >> > >> > >> > >> >Digital Culture (s) >> > >> >1) How can someome talk about that, if ,what happens is a >> >digitalization of various cultures ? >> > >> >2) Talking about Digital Culture in a singular way is totalitarian, >> >is a medium not a culture. >> > >> >> >> >> >> -- >> http://jwm-art.net/ >> image/audio/text/code/ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NetBehaviour mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > -- http://jwm-art.net/ image/audio/text/code/ _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
