On 07/22/2012 09:58 AM, Lisi wrote: > I was at a local LUG meeting today and was very distressed that the > above view should be expressed, and forcefully. I found it > distressing because that is quite some allegation - that we and Mate > users and Cinnamon users etc., (all splinter groups) are actually > damaging Linux, doing it harm. That's because LUG == Linux User's Group, not Freedom User's Group. Its an incredibly stupid thing to say, not only because it isn't true, but because none of the software involved in the argument *is* Linux. People thus persuaded are losers, and lusers. They have already accepted an economic model that their perceived competitors pretend, but in which they themselves do not believe. There is only one requirement for software proliferation and dominance, and companies like Microsoft know it. Promiscuity[1]. Software diversity is the sign that you are succeeding, not failing. If you aren't actively encouraging the mass distribution of blue pills, and making sure people are taking them, they will start taking red pills. Its as simple as that. Microsoft doesn't have to make sure their pills are getting distributed as much as they have to make sure that every glass of water comes with a blue pill by default. They have even started making sure they can attack anyone who wants red pills nonetheless[2]. Operating systems like GNU and Android, that use the Linux kernel have taken over every single market into which they have been introduced, except the desktop. Vendor lock in is and has been the only bar preventing mass adoption. > The fact that we are free to digress and disagree is why I like open > source so much. Take away that freedom and we might as well all use > Windows. I agree with you completely. What you are saying that you value your freedom most. If that's true, stop endorsing "open source". "Open source" is a greasy weaselly term invented by individuals trying very hard to endear themselves to businessmen and financiers that do not want to leave our freedom alone and unmolested.[3] LUGs are filled to the brim with trendy hipsters jumping around and regurgitating "open source" vomit and attacking anyone who advocates the value of freedom with ideas like diversity in desktop environment is hurting the adoption of GNU+Linux. It's nonsense. It just isn't true. > Since Linux without its freedom would not be Linux, nothing would > seem to me more terminally harmful to Linux than to destroy that > freedom. Freedom is not something that can be applied to software, because its just code. Code is not self-actualizing. People have freedom and need to have software that includes source code and terms that permit unrestricted use, study, modification, and redistribution to prevent our freedom from being infringed. If you or I cannot use GNU+Linux with our freedom intact, that is terminally harmful to us. [1] http://labnol.blogspot.com/2007/07/we-love-microsoft-software-piracy-in.html [2] http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/reality-check-microsoft-charging-vendors-a-15-patent-fee-per-android-device/9944 [3] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html