Firstly, shiretoko, I appreciate you for engaging in the conversation despite complete disagreement. I'd like us to understand one another better.
I have a question. Have you Ever worked in IT? By that, I actually mean consumer-facing IT. You'd be shocked at just how many people want a computer to behave in an entirely consumeristic manner. They want to have somebody to call when things go wrong - somebody responsible other than the self. They want to not be allowed to do something that might get them into trouble. They want everything to be an iPhone. Those people haven't been brainwashed. They do know there are alternatives. They -want- a nonfree system that locks them down. It's what they willingly and eagerly pay for, and it's the majority of the population. We, the people who want freedom, are the minority. The two need to coexist. It's the same thing as somebody specifically wanting to live in a Socialist governed country (which, personally, I want). Self-reliance is only good for those who want it. A whole lot of people see free software as simply a way to get software for free. Unfortunately no matter how it's worded, they aren't going to see it differently. It's just not a path of thinking that they'd like to travel down, and they don't want to understand. Again, this is a huge section of the population. If people disagreeing and opting for something different from you is insane - you yourself have an insane ideology. I'm sure we need people like you in this world and in the free software movement, to push certain things along, but in the end it's religious extremism. Finally - people don't design non-free or proprietary software in order to take away anybody's freedom. They do it to provide a product for a free-market capitalist model, allowing them to support said software by having full control of the way it works. There's a reason Windows and Mac OS are the two most used operating systems. It's because most people *want* that, and are making a *free* choice to have it. Free software is important. There's no need to demonize the alternatives. Now, if you have any new points to make, we can debate those. At this point, if I'm not grossly misunderstanding the situation, the disagreement is not based on different understandings, but differently chosen positions. I understand yours and disagree with it. You understand mine (I think) and disagree with it. This does not need a resolution. On Thu Feb 19 2015 at 2:49:49 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > A final remark on this idea of "taking away the freedom to be non-free": > Let's suppose there are people who want to be restricted by non-free > software > really badly. It's a completely unrealistic scenario, but let's just asume > for now. > They are like "please lock away the code and control my computing". > Well, just because nobody on the whole planet is doing as they wish, that > doesn't mean that their freedom has been taken away. They still have > control > over their own lives; just not about the lives of others. > It's just: nobody is assisting them in hurting themselves. > >
