Terry Hancock wrote:
1) My prior experience with Slashdot suggests it's all negative, so I
wasn't surprised. Maybe I'm biased, but my experience is that people
would far rather bitch about proprietary vendors than construct a viable
alternative ("It may be better to light a candle, but cursing the
darkness is more fun"?)
I tend to concur; I wouldn't put much into any responses on Slashdot.
Also, how do you know you're not talking to people who work for
organizations whose interests are better served by the controlled
economy of proprietary firmware and secret hardware design? Also, my
impression of a lot of websites I see is that they attract a younger
audience who are not as well-versed in even recent history as I'd
prefer. But I'm sure this is nothing that hasn't been said of every
generation when they were young and inexperienced.
2) A surprising number of FLOSS advocates are very negative about open
hardware -- either dismissive of its importance (Stallman, for example,
was very dismissive about it for a long time, though I think he's coming
around a bit nowadays) or convinced it's impossible and those of us who
think otherwise are just hopelessly naive or don't understand how open
source works. <sigh>
I'd like to read or see some sources on the Stallman claim here. I'm
aware of him discussing the illogic of a hardware copier -- physical
objects are made anew rather than copied like data -- a prerequisite to
directly map free software freedoms to hardware. But I'm unaware of
Stallman dismissing the importance of hardware we can fully understand
and control.
_______________________________________________
Open-graphics mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics
List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
