On Wednesday 21 March 2007 22:22, Peter Van Lone wrote:
<snip>
>
> It just seems to me that there is a kind of religious intensity that
> is out of place -- the world is destined to have both F/OSS and
> proprietary (closed source) software. There has to be a mechanism for
> allowing these two approaches to software development and licensing,
> to co-exist peacefully. To "interoperate" to all of our advantage.
The statement is a contradiction in terms. Interoperability is only
relevant
during the transition... once the transition is complete M$ and their entire
product line are irrelevant. At this point interoperability is only relevant
at the enterprise level (which, by the way was the target of the M$-Novell
deal). In my home and business M$ is completely irrelevant today.
> Personally, I want the influence of linux to grow, and that of
> Microsoft to diminish. I want to see linux become the predominate (or,
> most influential) desktop OS. I believe that in order to become an
> order of magnatude more influential than it is currently (especially
> on the desktop) that it will have to penetrate both the corp and home
> user worlds. **This won't happen without some changes --- changes that
> are resisted by stallwarts "in the community".**
**This** is already happening right before your eyes... and its because
of
the stallwarts "in the community".
> I understand the outrage of the FSF people concerning what they see as
> Novell essentially "giving into" greivous thuggary in the form of
> Microsoft's patent and other bullying. Richard Stallman and Bruce
> Perens (both titans and honorable people) are emphatic in their belief
> that **proprietary software and software patents** are .... just wrong
> headed and ... plain wrong.
RMS is completely vindicated... M$ has become our worst nightmare and
RMS
predicted that final conclusion years ago. **Its** wrong not because RMS is
pigheaded, but because its wrong.
> But while I "get" the Cathedral and the Bazarre and I accept that for
> many projects and in many ways, an OPEN model of development is just
> better and makes more sense ... while I
> "get that", I also accept and understand that proprietary software
> itself is not "evil".
Proprietary software is an outdated protectionist evil, the fruit of
jealousy
and greed. The very nature of open (free) (call it righteous, call it true)
software is that it not only functions, it communicates and propagates the
art... centered in a sharing & caring spirit with the community interests
upheld first... and also carried forward with a certain spirit of humility---
begging for honest critique and challenging others to better it and carry it
still further.
> I have never been able to accept "true believers and beliefs" in
> anything. I think everything, --- and particularly things like
> commerce and trading and human organizations and belief systems and
> governments and legal systems and contracts and .... --- are
> necessarily colored in shades of grey.
Shades of grey... <sigh> What fellowship has light with darkness?
Walk in the darkness, or walk in the light. Grey choices are just
degrees of
'less' light.
> And I also -- though this is harder to swallow and even to say --
> don't think that Microsoft itself is "evil". I think, often wrong.
> Often, bad for the industry. Often (and never really punished)
> illegal and immoral in it's conduct.
<snip>
You just defined corporate evil bubba. And M$ is evil---end of story.
> Personally, as to Novell's deal with Microsoft, I think it was "a
> first". And therefore awkward and not ... ideal. And, likely, needed
> to happen in some guise at some time. Can Microsoft "be trusted"? Well
> ... no, not if you mean by "trust" that Microsoft will abandon it's
> plans to subvert linux and F/OSS in general. But on the other hand,
> does the agreement actually acomplish ANYTHING, other than
> communicate "safety" to corporate accounts? I
> don't think so.
Dance with the devil... lose your soul.
> It is not a legal precedent that can effectively be used. The most
> that can be said is that it gave Ballmer a stage upon which to howl.
Ballmer is going to howl himself into an early grave if he isn't
careful...
> So ... I am waiting to hear more voices like Linus Torvalds, who wants
> to keep away from the labels of "evil", the "true believing" mantras
> that seem to hold sway as the main voices from "the community" right
> now.
RMS has convictions... and I respect him for them. I share some of
those same
convictions.
> I respect and admire the principles and passions of the community. I
> just also happen to believe, that "pure" F/OSS can co-exist with
> proprietary software and companies. And, actually, I believe that for
> linux to penetrate even deeper into the corp world (especially in the
> desktop) that alliances like the Novell/Microsoft alliance will be key.
Nope. It is happening and the only key role M$ has played is to be so
evil
that the community was willing by virtue of their own time, money, energy,
and personal resource to overcome. M$ pushed us all over the edge... so get
off the tracks cause the freight train is coming....
> I think the real tragedy, should it occur, is for the GPL 3 to compel
> a split in linux ... or to effectively kill Suse linux. It think that
> would be horrid, and a mistake, and ... would do great great harm to
> F/OSS in the long run.
OpenSUSE may die... unfortunately... look at Slashdot tonight (read the
comments from those who are responding to Perens at the BrainFart
conference--- Novell is taking it in the shorts folks). Novell may have
blown it here... and it may haunt them. Regardless--- the cat is
out-of-the-bag and there is going to be no catching it either. Novell needs
to smarten up... <sad>
> I am hoping that cooler heads prevail. I am hoping that Novell figures
> out how to approach the FSF folks to begin a dialogue, and that the
> parties find a way to agree where they can and continue on,
> disagreeing where they must.
Oh there's going to be a dialog all right... GPLv3.
> I am hoping that there are strong voices from amongst the Suse
> community that will reach out and counsel and encourage sane and
> reasonable behaviour. I am hoping we can end the crusade, and begin
> the rennaisance.
Revolutions are never safe or reasonable... that's why folks resist
drastic
shifts in paradigm at almost all costs--- while "evils are tolerable". When
the evil of oppression grows to life suffocating proportions then reasonable
folks are often inspired to stand up with one voice and sometimes right along
the very edge of sanity--- to row against the current, to face the giants, to
stand against tyranny at all levels.
In the days of old tyranny raised its head with human state and
crown...
today tyranny reigns from corporate board rooms... some of which are
corporate parasites that voraciously feed upon the greed and lusts of the
others... all of them eaten alive in the process. M$ represents the
quintessential corporate parasite... an evil giant that must be brought
down... hard... now.
--
Kind regards,
M Harris <><
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
