The Meaning of Good and Evil.

[mstlyevil]

The last couple of days there has been a debate about Linspire porting CNR as a third party application for Ubuntu. During this debate the term "evil" is constantly being used to describe Linspire, Kevin Carmony, CNR and proprietary software. At the same time these same people are calling RMS, FSF, GNU and FOSS "good" and noble. It is starting to sound more like a religious war than a debate on software, developers, companies and formats.

You really want to know what "evil" is? Flying planes into buildings and killing 3000 inocent people is evil. Shooting protesters at a university in Ohio for voicing their opposition to the war in Vietnam is evil. Shooting peacefull protesters in Tienamem Square and rolling tanks over them is evil. Parking a truck bomb in front of a Federal Building and killing 167 innocent men women and children is evil. Lynching people and hanging them to death based soley on the color of their skin is evil. Using chemical weapons on your own citizens to quiet their protest is evil. Killing six million innocent people for being born Jewish is evil. Raping, pillaging and murdering innocent people is evil. Do you get the point?

Has software been responisible for doing any of these things? The answer is no. Then why are there so many people drawing a conclusion that software is somehow related to the most attrocious acts in human history? Why is there such polarization of absolutes in the GNU/Linux community? I can accept if they use the terms unethical or immoral. Calling proprietary software and it's makers evil is way over the top and I want to understand why some believe they have to use this terminology to describe software.

[aysiu]

In the heat of arguments, people are prone to exaggeration because they get worked up and want to make a point simply without a lot of explanation.

That's why they use simplistic and extreme terms like "good" and "evil."

At least... that's why I'd hope they were using them.

Of course, now that you've written a completely reasonable post addressing real issues, someone's going to take it on some sort of theoretical and hypothetical tangent explaning how software could be used for evil purposes...

[Xian]

I want to understand why some believe they have to use this terminology to describe software.

Passionate issues result in emotional (not sensible) language.
Which is why I rarely read in those type of threads....

[DrFunkenstein]

The last couple of days there has been a debate about Linspire porting CNR as a third party application for Ubuntu. During this debate the term "evil" is constantly being used to describe Linspire, Kevin Carmony, CNR and proprietary software. At the same time these same people are calling RMS, FSF, GNU and FOSS "good" and noble. It is starting to sound more like a religious war than a debate on software, developers, companies and formats.

You shouldn't mistake those crying the loudest in the discussion about CNR with free software advocates. If anything, they have shown that they don't have the slightest clue about the subject.



Has software been responisible for doing any of these things? The answer is no. Then why are there so many people drawing a conclusion that software is somehow related to the most attrocious acts in human history?

Nobody did draw this conclusion. If I may be so bold, only you did by equating evil with this attrocities you mentioned. However, evil does of course have a much broader meaning and don't forget, this is just a forum, people write things without thinking about the words they choose very much. I agree with you however that unethical or immoral or problematic might be better choices.

[awakatanka]

evil is also restriced someone's freedom because of someones own believe, in a few country's people can't express there mind, religion, our there sexual preference without the risk to go to jail our even worse face a risk of death.

But this kind of evil is also here in a lighter form, people that think they support freedom restict other people for there freedom of choose.

Some people have to learn that everyone has the right to do what ever they want to do with there own pc/os.

CNR is not evil ,restricting someone's chooses because it doesn't reflect there's is.

Sorry if i offend someone.

[mstlyevil]

Both of you make very good points. It is funny to see how emotion corrupts sound thinking sometimes.

[mstlyevil]

You shouldn't mistake those crying the loudest in the discussion about CNR with free software advocates. If anything, they have shown that they don't have the slightest clue about the subject.

I don't want to give the impression that I believe it is all or even most free software advocates. I know it is a very vocal minority that may not even have a real clue what free software truly is.



Nobody did draw this conclusion. If I may be so bold, only you did by equating evil with this attrocities you mentioned. However, evil does of course have a much broader meaning and don't forget, this is just a forum, people write things without thinking about the words they choose very much. I agree with you however that unethical or immoral or problematic might be better choices.

That may not be their intention to draw that conclusion but using the term evil can lead a reader to make that conclusion. I think some people really do use the word on purpose to polarize the issue further. Some of it may be accidental but some of it is very much intentional.

[majikstreet]

The last couple of days there has been a debate about Linspire porting CNR as a third party application for Ubuntu. During this debate the term "evil" is constantly being used to describe Linspire, Kevin Carmony, CNR and proprietary software. At the same time these same people are calling RMS, FSF, GNU and FOSS "good" and noble. It is starting to sound more like a religious war than a debate on software, developers, companies and formats.

You really want to know what "evil" is? Flying planes into buildings and killing 3000 inocent people is evil. Shooting protesters at a university in Ohio for voicing their opposition to the war in Vietnam is evil. Shooting peacefull protesters in Tienanam Square and rolling tanks over them is evil. Parking a truck bomb in front of a Federal Building and killing 167 innocent men women and children is evil. Lynching people and hanging them to death based soley on the color of their skin is evil. Using chemical weapons on your own citizens to quiet their protest is evil. Killing six million innocent people for being born Jewish is evil. Raping, pillaging and murdering innocent people is evil. Do you get the point?

Has software been responisible for doing any of these things? The answer is no. Then why are there so many people drawing a conclusion that software is somehow related to the most attrocious acts in human history? Why is there such polarization of absolutes in the GNU/Linux community? I can accept if they use the terms unethical or immoral. Calling proprietary software and it's makers evil is way over the top and I want to understand why some believe they have to use this terminology to describe software.
*bows down*

Wow... there are not many people who actually know about the Kent State Massacre... (younger people that is...)

[mstlyevil]

*bows down*

Wow... there are not many people who actually know about the Kent State Massacre... (younger people that is...)

I wanted to use it so people will not accuse me of being biased to other countries that have committed attrocities. The US has it's share of them too.

[DrFunkenstein]

That may not be their intention to draw that conclusion but using the term evil can lead a reader to make that conclusion. I think some people really do use the word on purpose to polarize the issue further. Some of it may be accidental but some of it is very much intentional.
Could you tell me where you saw the word evil mentioned in this context here?
I could only find it here (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=139374&page=2) and it wasn't brought up by a free software advocate there, but by somone claiming that "Stallman and his extremist followers" feel that propietary software is evil.

[fuscia]

wanting to make money, selling something people want, is not evil. if selling stuff is evil, then selling food would be evil before selling software ever would be. let's all go outside and get a windburn.

[aysiu]

I wonder how many free software-only people screen out restaurants whose chefs don't GPL their recipes?

[fuscia]

I wonder how many free software-only people screen out restaurants whose chefs don't GPL their recipes?

GPL barbecue sauce would ruin the south.

[mstlyevil]

Could you tell me where you saw the word evil mentioned in this context here?
I could only find it here (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=139374&page=2) and it wasn't brought up by a free software advocate there, but by somone claiming that "Stallman and his extremist followers" feel that propietary software is evil.

I will add more as I find them.

http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=785579&postcount=57

[mostwanted]

I wonder how many free software-only people screen out restaurants whose chefs don't GPL their recipes?

Good one.

[DrFunkenstein]

I will add more as I find them.

http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=785579&postcount=57
Thanks, but isn't this post really arguing that DRM is evil, not propietary software as such?

P.S.: You don't have to go post hunting for me. I was simply curious.

[aysiu]

To elaborate a bit further on the chef/recipe thing...

Think about it. If someone works hard on her own piece of software, why should she say, "Hey, I'll open up the source so anyone can modify it and use it on her own"? If she does that, she's noble indeed... a saint. This is what's supposed to happen in science. Though, anyone who knows about the history of AIDS will know this isn't always the case--many scientists are not willing to cooperate so that they can be the first to publish new discoveries and get all the credit.

Wouldn't recipes, in fact, be better if they were all freely available to be improved upon? Yes. Isn't that a noble thing? Yes. Is it an evil and selfish thing for a pizza joint to have a secret family recipe that's been passed down from generation to generation? No.

You know what's truly evil? Joe Shuster and Jerry Siegel getting almost no money for inventing Superman. Who got all the profits and the rights to the character--DC Comics. In the mid-90s there was a huge revolution in comic books because major "hot" artists left Marvel (mostly) and DC to start their own independent comic book company that would allow artists and writers to be published but own the rights to their own work.

So who's protesting Superman and DC Comics?

I believe in open source, but to call closed source and proprietary software evil is going just too far. And if you really, truly believe it... that'd better spill over into every facet of your life, not just the software you use.

[mstlyevil]

Thanks, but isn't this post really arguing that DRM is evil, not propietary software as such?

P.S.: You don't have to go post hunting for me. I was simply curious.

Thanks. He said CNR was evil to him. But you and I both know the term is used way too much and by both sides. I posted this thread so we could all think about how we come across when we use such harsh language. I have been guilty of this myself.

[nalmeth]

emotion corrupts sound thinking sometimes

sometimes eh?


To elaborate a bit further on the chef/recipe thing...

People are always trying to create analogies to the OS movement, and they really never actually match up..
The automobile to operating system is one I hear all the time. People will go to great lengths to draw similarities, indeed, I once tried to draw that one out to explain open-source software to someone. I took it quite far, into flying vehicles force-fields, and so on.
I recently compiled my kernel with Preemption enabled, and likened it to taking out the engine of my car, taking it apart, adding a new carboration system, and putting the engine back in, all while it was still running.
There's nothing wrong with doing this, I love to see imagination in motion. But these analogies never do justice to the issue, and never really acurately depict Open Source ideas. This online community we're communicating in is a world of its own. You can't exactly describe a physical property to a non-physical thing such as a program or an operating system. It is physical in its own way, but only in the parameters of it's own realm. You can't relate an operating system to a car that well, because this software is free. Not only is the hood not welded shut, but all the parts of the car - engine, tranny, chassis - are all completely free. The analogies don't add up, and so the point made with the analogy rarely strikes much significance to me.

Chef's opening up their recipies? Is there a head chef out there that has hired an association of chef's and is trying to force everyone not only to eat their food now, but force them to eat their food in the future too? Are they trying to make you buy cutlery and dishes that will not operate unless they are serving food made by certain recipies? Is there a rogue group of chef's that are trying to spread open recipies to combat the imperial chefs? Again, these analogies are fun and interesting, but what real weight do they carry? Do we make these stories so deep and detailed just to make one half-baked point here and there? The internet is a world of its own, and references from the outside will only carry so much weight.

And about the strong use of negative language.. This is all reactionary response. Why is there so much polarization in the community? Because this entire realm we're engaged in is a duality between two poles.

+++++ ++++ +++ ++ + 0 - ---- ------ --------

The meaning of the words people spit out are due to the convicting emotion that spawned them. People who are more dedicated on either side of the zero point (+++++ vs -----) will press stronger convictions about their side.

This is where we get some resemblance to the real world, which is a grid of opposing poles, creating the balance which allows to live day by day. This is how we operate, and how humanity learns lessons in the long run.

Male - female
Right - Wrong
Malevolent - Benevolent
Tradegy - Comedy
Democrat - Repulican
Socialsm - Fascism
Pain - Joy
Love - Hate
Closed - Open

When you're saying evil, you're using the word to convey your reactionary responses to the poles you are opposed to:

Flying planes into buildings and killing 3000 inocent people is evil. Shooting protesters at a university in Ohio for voicing their opposition to the war in Vietnam is evil. Shooting peacefull protesters in Tienanam Square and rolling tanks over them is evil. Parking a truck bomb in front of a Federal Building and killing 167 innocent men women and children is evil. Lynching people and hanging them to death based soley on the color of their skin is evil. Using chemical weapons on your own citizens to quiet their protest is evil. Killing six million innocent people for being born Jewish is evil. Raping, pillaging and murdering innocent people is evil.
You mention many negative things indeed. Yet there are other atrocities going on everyday, which we can't even pretend to grasp as we sit here warm on our computers, powered by elecricity, with food in our stomachs, completely removed from the sight and sound of every day suffering.

I'm not an existentialist, or a relativist, utilitarian etc. But every word I am saying is conveying my overall perspective on the extended world outside of myself. Reacting to my emotions in such clockwork fashion that I begin to believe its just 'sound thinking'. A person delivering a calm directed point is far from removed of emotion.

At what point does someone decide to respond to a thread while browsing the forums here? Where is the friction point when someone feels compelled to post their view and in such a subtle 'unemotional' way try to align the views of other posters with their engagement in the discussion?

Everyone has buttons that can and will be pushed, and will naturally use language to convey the strong emotion they experience.

[aysiu]

The monopoly in comic book publishing was a lot worse than Microsoft's monopoly, I tell you. You can conveniently show where the chef's recipes analogy breaks down, but the point remains--there are many injustices related to closed source and control, and they aren't unique to the software community.

[DrFunkenstein]

You can conveniently show where the chef's recipes analogy breaks down, but the point remains--there are many injustices related to closed source and control, and they aren't unique to the software community.
Who said they were?

[imagine]

Both of you make very good points. It is funny to see how emotion corrupts sound thinking sometimes.
Right. For example stating that "during this debate the term "evil" is constantly being used to describe Linspire, Kevin Carmony, CNR and proprietary software", whereas it was used exactly one time when a user wrote that the CNR warehouse is evil *to him*.



Something ontopic: I support Stallman's ideas about freedom, yet I don't see myself as "an extremist with an elitist attitude who is spreading FUD" (ok, no surprise here), as sadly a few other users wrote.
The only reason why I'm here is actually the free software movement. I don't consider Linux systems technically superior to other operating systems in a way that would matter to the end user. I don't had any security problems with other operating systems either, nor do I hate their user interfaces. I'm here because I didn't feel *free* elsewhere. Free to install software without being forced to accept pervert EULAs, free to configure the system the way I like, free to use open formats which don't tie me to certain programs, etc.
Maybe it gets understandable now why I (or others) get angry when people say things like "freedom is nice, but if it's stopping us from increasing our market share then it's worth to sacrifice some of it".



In some way the criticism about free software is right, part of the idea is indeed to ensure freedom by reducing choice. But on the other hand it's wrong again, since this is a contradiction only at first glance. Maybe an oversimplified example helps: Take two countries. Country one has absolutely no laws, everything's allowed. Country two has a single law which says "You must not make new laws or change this one". Now, which country is more "free"? Clearly in country one you are allowed to do one more thing than in country two, but in the end you may end up with a lot more restrictions in country one.

Anyway, there's no definitive answer to this question and since I didn't follow the threads about Linspire's CNR warehouse closely, I don't even know how this all started. After all most of the software in the CNR warehouse *is* free, and that Linspire wants money to run their servers got nothing to do with free or not-free software. They should put their CNR software under the GPL, but that's about it.



Btw software (indepedant from being free or not) *is* used to hunt down and kill people. There's nothing theoretical or hypothetical about that.

[mstlyevil]

You mention many negative things indeed. Yet there are other atrocities going on everyday, which we can't even pretend to grasp as we sit here warm on our computers, powered by elecricity, with food in our stomachs, completely removed from the sight and sound of every day suffering.

I'm not an existentialist, or a relativist, utilitarian etc. But every word I am saying is conveying my overall perspective on the extended world outside of myself. Reacting to my emotions in such clockwork fashion that I begin to believe its just 'sound thinking'. A person delivering a calm directed point is far from removed of emotion.

At what point does someone decide to respond to a thread while browsing the forums here? Where is the friction point when someone feels compelled to post their view and in such a subtle 'unemotional' way try to align the views of other posters with their engagement in the discussion?

Everyone has buttons that can and will be pushed, and will naturally use language to convey the strong emotion they experience.

You are my God. This is very well thought out and strikes me as very accurate. My head is spinning, I need an asprin.

[fuscia]

it does seem out of place to try to mix proprietary materials in with a bunch of free stuff fanatics. it's kind of like bringing ketchup to a vegan dinner.

[aysiu]

Who said they were? The post I was responding to. Here's an excerpt:
The internet is a world of its own, and references from the outside will only carry so much weight.

[nalmeth]

The monopoly in comic book publishing was a lot worse than Microsoft's monopoly, I tell you.

maybe in injustice to the comic creators, but do people generally suffer more from injustices in the entertainment realm, or the technology realm?

[aysiu]

maybe in injustice to the comic creators, but do people generally suffer more from injustices in the entertainment realm, or the technology realm? I don't think most people would say they suffer from either.

[DrFunkenstein]

The post I was responding to. Here's an excerpt:
Sorry, but it didn't say this at all and anyway, I was wondering what the original point of your post was, as I probably simply didn't get it. (Silly me ;-D)

[aysiu]

Sorry, but it didn't say this at all What are you--the reading comprehension expert? I used to be an English teacher, and I can assure you Nalmeth's post implied that the software industry was in a unique situation. That was what half the post was about--how analogies don't hold up because software is in a unique place. Why don't you paraphrase what you think Nalmeth's point was.


and anyway, I was wondering what the original point of your post was, as I probably simply didn't get it. (Silly me ;-D) The exact opposite of Nalmeth's post--that the injustices in the software world are not unique to software or the internet, and they do, in fact, carry over to other realms (cooking, publishing, academia, etc.).

You can't just keep saying, "No that wasn't what I was saying" and "who said that" to try to make it sound as if I was disagreeing with no one. The fact that Nalmeth rebutted indicates I am actually disagreeing with someone.

[DrFunkenstein]

What are you--the reading comprehension expert? I used to be an English teacher, and I can assure you Nalmeth's post implied that the software industry was in a unique situation. That was what half the post was about--how analogies don't hold up because software is in a unique place. Why don't you paraphrase what you think Nalmeth's point was.

But pointing out that the software is different doesn't translate to saying that "injustices related to closed source and control [...] [are] unique to the software community."



The exact opposite of Nalmeth's post--that the injustices in the software world are not unique to software or the internet, and they do, in fact, carry over to other realms (cooking, publishing, academia, etc.).

Weird. So in your original post you answered something someone allegedly said in an answer to the original post?



You can't just keep saying, "No that wasn't what I was saying" and "who said that" to try to make it sound as if I was disagreeing with no one.

I was simply asking a question, as I didn't and still don't see anyone who disagreed with what you claimed to be the point of your original post.



The fact that Nalmeth rebutted indicates I am actually disagreeing with someone.
He certainly disagreed with you, however this again does not translate to your statement about what he said being true.

[nalmeth]

I don't think most people would say they suffer from either.

haha I started writing a bunch of other stuff, but totally misread what you said!

It would depend where on an emotional scale 'most people' are. Most people running windows are actually probably 0 on the scale, because they don't know the difference between open and closed source.
"I thought computers were just computers"
Yet they significantly contribute to the closed-source pole, even without a philosophical contribution or recognition. Especially actually, because if they we're introduced to the subject, it would set in motion another duality in the user's mind, that there are two opposing ideas. This combined with a 'right/wrong' way of thinking, the mere introduction of the subject would cause a chain of events, leading to a 'vote' of confidence or contribution on one side or the other.

Just like I, supporting comic book monopoly. I thought comic books were just comic books! I will think twice now about that!

[Xian]

It's at times like this that the tech sections are so lovable. :)

[mstlyevil]

Right. For example stating that "during this debate the term "evil" is constantly being used to describe Linspire, Kevin Carmony, CNR and proprietary software", whereas it was used exactly one time when a user wrote that the CNR warehouse is evil *to him*.

For one if you read the entire thread i stopped searching after that link because we thought it was unnecessary. So you are telling me that a vocal minority (not all FSF and RMS supporters) never go around the various forums on the net and say these things? I have seen this type of attack time and time again against anything closed source but you never had. I must not be thinking clearly then.




Something ontopic: I support Stallman's ideas about freedom, yet I don't see myself as "an extremist with an elitist attitude who is spreading FUD" (ok, no surprise here), as sadly a few other users wrote.
The only reason why I'm here is actually the free software movement. I don't consider Linux systems technically superior to other operating systems in a way that would matter to the end user. I don't had any security problems with other operating systems either, nor do I hate their user interfaces. I'm here because I didn't feel *free* elsewhere. Free to install software without being forced to accept pervert EULAs, free to configure the system the way I like, free to use open formats which don't tie me to certain programs, etc.
Maybe it gets understandable now why I (or others) get angry when people say things like "freedom is nice, but if it's stopping us from increasing our market share then it's worth to sacrifice some of it".

You are clearly in the majority that believe in free software. You do not go around spreading FUD. You just do not want to be tied to the terms of license agreements and that is understandable. People have different ways of defining freedom. I do not believe I give up my freedom by installing non free software. I can always uninstall it if I feel the need to do so. No one is asking you ar Ubuntu to sacrifice any thing. Ubuntu will remain the same no matter what third party software may be available for it. You still have the choice not to use it.




In some way the criticism about free software is right, part of the idea is indeed to ensure freedom by reducing choice. But on the other hand it's wrong again, since this is a contradiction only at first glance. Maybe an oversimplified example helps: Take two countries. Country one has absolutely no laws, everything's allowed. Country two has a single law which says "You must not make new laws or change this one". Now, which country is more "free"? Clearly in country one you are allowed to do one more thing than in country two, but in the end you may end up with a lot more restrictions in country one.

First off people usually have no choice what country they live in. But lets say if the whole world could choose which country and leave at any time for the other then where is their freedom restricted? They are free to accept an reject any one at any time. This is true today between free and non free software. Each person is free to choose which one at any time and therefore has true freedom.


Anyway, there's no definitive answer to this question and since I didn't follow the threads about Linspire's CNR warehouse closely, I don't even know how this all started. After all most of the software in the CNR warehouse *is* free, and that Linspire wants money to run their servers got nothing to do with free or not-free software. They should put their CNR software under the GPL, but that's about it.

I would have no problem if they chose to GPL CNR.



Btw software (indepedant from being free or not) *is* used to hunt down and kill people. There's nothing theoretical or hypothetical about that.

The software is just a tool. The actions are still those of human beings.

[nalmeth]

Nalmeth's post implied that the software industry was in a unique situation

That wasn't my point specifically. My point was that the software paradigm has so many unique elements totally alien to other commonly insinuated analogies with other paradigms, (You would probably fail my english eh? :D more run on to come ) that the points usually made never do complete justice to the issue at hand. I'm not saying I'm annoyed by people drawing similarities, just pointing out the humor in how far people will go to corrolate a symmetry in the two paradigms (to make a point), were no true symmetry exists. I am guilty of this all the time too, and I laugh at my own attempts to do this aswell. The process of relating and contrasting experience and ideas is as in borne as your heart to your body.

I didn't mean to personally attack your point asiyu, I just found it humorous. I'm sure not as funny as my grammer though!

[mstlyevil]

That wasn't my point specifically. My point was that the software paradigm has so many unique elements totally alien to other commonly insinuated analogies of other paradigms, (You would probably fail my english eh? :D more run on to come ) that the points usually made never do complete justice to the issue at hand. I'm not saying I'm annoyed by people drawing similarities, just pointing out the humor in how far people will go to corrolate a symmetry in the two paradigms, were no true symmetry exists. I am guilty of this all the time too, and I laugh at my own attempts to do this aswell. The process of relating and contrasting experience and ideas is as in borne as your heart to your body.

I didn't mean to personally attack your point asiyu, I just found it humorous. I'm sure not as funny as my grammer though!

I want your language skills damnit!

[nalmeth]

I want your language skills damnit!
That's quite a compliment, thank you! But you will see I keep going back and editing out mistakes :oops:

[aysiu]

Analogies are designed to bring light to a situation. They do, by their very nature, break down at a certain point. No other situation will in every way match that of the software industry, just as no human--no matter how similar she is to me--will match me exactly, as my DNA is unique to me.

I don't know if we're really in disagreement here, Nalmeth--we may just be emphasizing different things.

My emphasis is more on the fact that software people can sometimes get so locked into their own passionate beliefs about software that they don't realize how similar those struggles are to things outside the software industry.

Yours seems to be that even though there are similarities, nothing is in the exact place in terms of open/closed source, monopolies, privacy, etc. that software is in right now. I agree with this.

The danger seems to be, on these forums, of erring on the side of myopia, though.

[nalmeth]

I don't know if we're really in disagreement here, Nalmeth--we may just be emphasizing different things.

My emphasis is more on the fact that software people can sometimes get so locked into their own passionate beliefs about software that they don't realize how similar those struggles are to things outside the software industry.

Yours seems to be that even though there are similarities, nothing is in the exact place in terms of open/closed source, monopolies, privacy, etc. that software is in right now. I agree with this.

Maybe we're in total agreement, only our english habits have presented seeminly different points. Canadian dialect is different after all!

Really to begin with, I was only pointing out some humor in this discussion, but did not impart that feeling very transparently.

[aysiu]

Actually, I think we're in total agreement, only our english habits have presented seeminly different points. Canadian dialect is different after all! Okay. Let's agree, then. Cool.

[mstlyevil]

Maybe we're in total agreement, only our english habits have presented seeminly different points. Canadian dialect is different after all!

Really to begin with, I was only pointing out some humor in this discussion, but did not impart that feeling very transparentley.

Thats the French influence in your dialect.

[nalmeth]

haha! Actually I'm from the west, but grew up in school with a lot of french immersion, so that would influence greatly! I knew german aswell, lived there for 3 years or so.

EDIT: also humorous how no matter what, some people will disagree when trying to agree to disagree, to agree..

[mstlyevil]

I completely agree and disagree at the same time.

[aysiu]

EDIT: also humorous how no matter what, some people will disagree when trying to agree to disagree, to agree.. I always try to agree whenever possible without compromising my position. If I'm in disagreement, though, I also like to acknowledge that the other person has a point, if she actually does.

[Thirion]

...


Its seems your from the USA. I think its evil to make war because of oil, to support monarchs and rich people because of oil and help this people with money and weapons to fight against the poor people. The social system of the USA is evil and the politics in the USA are evil. Thats no democracy!

But back to topic. Sure, Linux and Open Source / GNU has not much to do with politics. But i think it could be an example for the future. The power of Open Source is the Community and that people work for a Community, not only for themselves and to get money. Open Source could show that there is something beside money and economics and that this is very strong and successful. The USA is developing into a nation where only money counts and thats the wrong way. Open Source is a new and a completely different way in the software economic and i hope it will be possible in future to do the same in politics, community and so on.

Sry for bad english and i haven't read the thread but i wanted to post my opinion to the first post.

Michael

[nalmeth]

But back to topic. Sure, Linux and Open Source / GNU has not much to do with politics. But i think it could be an example for the future. The power of Open Source is the Community and that people work for a Community, not only for themselves and to get money. Open Source could show that there is something beside money and economics and that this is very strong and successful. The USA is developing into a nation where only money counts and thats the wrong way. Open Source is a new and a completely different way in the software economic and i hope it will be possible in future to do the same in politics, community and so on.

I think you're totally right there. For an idea as 'idealistic' as the Free Software/Open Source Movement to be achieving success is great. The idea could become contagious start to spread to other parts of human life. There are movements in the Music community similar to this. I think the USA is really coming near to a breaking point with OSS growing, and DRM and patent laws gaining urgency.

[mstlyevil]

Its seems your from the USA. I think its evil to make war because of oil, to support monarchs and rich people because of oil and help this people with money and weapons to fight against the poor people. The social system of the USA is evil and the politics in the USA are evil. Thats no democracy!

If you read my definition of what evil is I equally criticized the US for their actions at Kent State as being evil. The US is no more or no less evil than any other country on the face of the earth.


But back to topic. Sure, Linux and Open Source / GNU has not much to do with politics. But i think it could be an example for the future. The power of Open Source is the Community and that people work for a Community, not only for themselves and to get money. Open Source could show that there is something beside money and economics and that this is very strong and successful. The USA is developing into a nation where only money counts and thats the wrong way. Open Source is a new and a completely different way in the software economic and i hope it will be possible in future to do the same in politics, community and so on.

Sry for bad english and i haven't read the thread but i wanted to post my opinion to the first post.

Michael

GNU/Linux has everything to do with politics. Political motivations were the basis for the creation of the FSF, GNU and FOSS. Open Source is also about money. You need to read the GPL because it supports people making money on it's software. Money counts in every nation in the world and not just in the US. The EU's stances against MSFT are all about money as is China's attempt to adopt Linux to avoid expensive licenses. Money drives the world and this will never change. The only thing that is guaranteed to change is who controls it.

I appreciate your opinion.

[Bandit]

O' My.. Am I one of the reasons behind this thread.. :)

I gave a few references to good and evil. But mainly as a analogy of proprietory and opensource software. Not that I think proprietory is evil, as in unholy and only bad comes from it. But basicly just to help everyone understand since many opensource advocates think proprietory software is bad. So I thought it would help witht the current debate.
I personaly do not like 95% of all proprietory software becuase I find that precentage to be filled with many bugs and lots of unstability. From my experience the largest precentage of opensource software is much more stable becuase in most cases there is a larger audiance testing and developing it as a team. Unlike most proprietory software has a small team and even smaller set if testers. Makes since huh..
This being said 92% of the software market is ran by companies selling proprietory
software. The current linux market is shifting very fast to all open software. Which unfortunatly leaves out such things as commerical DVD and MP3 playback. This I do belive is bad and will start holding linux back from becomming wide spread.
I do not belive now is the right time to try to get everyone into all opensource software. We must first appeal to the larger market (the 92% of users out there that use proprietory software). Then start trying to slowly convert them to all open source. Thus making companies such as CNR nessesery until we have gained a much larger portion of the market.
It is going to take more then 8% of the market before companies start seeing linux as a valuble alternitive operating system for developing software (open or not).
Most hardware vendors do not want and most will never (not all tho) release all the information to opensource developers to write linux compatable drivers. The reason of this is that in binary form other hardware vendors can not try to duplicate the other hardware makers current video hardware. This is why each video chipset is diferent and special in ther own way. So there for if you see proprietory software as evil then some proprietory software is a nessecery evil.
Cheers,
Joey

[mstlyevil]

O' My.. Am I one of the reasons behind this thread.. :)

I gave a few references to good and evil. But mainly as a analogy of proprietory and opensource software. Not that I think proprietory is evil, as in unholy and only bad comes from it. But basicly just to help everyone understand since many opensource advocates think proprietory software is bad. So I thought it would help witht the current debate.
I personaly do not like 95% of all proprietory software becuase I find that precentage to be filled with many bugs and lots of unstability. From my experience the largest precentage of opensource software is much more stable becuase in most cases there is a larger audiance testing and developing it as a team. Unlike most proprietory software has a small team and even smaller set if testers. Makes since huh..
This being said 92% of the software market is ran by companies selling proprietory
software. The current linux market is shifting very fast to all open software. Which unfortunatly leaves out such things as commerical DVD and MP3 playback. This I do belive is bad and will start holding linux back from becomming wide spread.
I do not belive now is the right time to try to get everyone into all opensource software. We must first appeal to the larger market (the 92% of users out there that use proprietory software). Then start trying to slowly convert them to all open source. Thus making companies such as CNR nessesery until we have gained a much larger portion of the market.
It is going to take more then 8% of the market before companies start seeing linux as a valuble alternitive operating system for developing software (open or not).
Most hardware vendors do not want and most will never (not all tho) release all the information to opensource developers to write linux compatable drivers. The reason of this is that in binary form other hardware vendors can not try to duplicate the other hardware makers current video hardware. This is why each video chipset is diferent and special in ther own way. So there for if you see proprietory software as evil then some proprietory software is a nessecery evil.
Cheers,
Joey

I don't blame you Bandit. This is just something that is becoming a recurring theme on the internet like it is some religious holy war. It is just freaking software. I think we need to get a life. :mrgreen:

[Thirion]

If you read my definition of what evil is I equally criticized the US for their actions at Kent State as being evil. The US is no more or no less evil than any other country on the face of the earth.
Ok, you're right.


Political motivations were the basis for the creation of the FSF, GNU and FOSS.
Yes thats right, but at the moment Open Source doesn't play an important role in daily politics. Some few politicians like Open Source and support this but the majority don't know Open Source or its not important for them. Because of this i'm of the opionion Open Source has not much to do with politics but of course i hope it will in future.


Open Source is also about money. You need to read the GPL because it supports people making money on it's software.
Of course it's also about money. But in the economy only money counts and in the Open Source community not only money counts. GPL have to support people making money, of course, everyone needs money but i think if you choose GPL it's a risk because if there is no community the software won't be very powerful and you won't earn as much money as you earn if you sell your software.


The EU's stances against MSFT are all about money as is China's attempt to adopt Linux to avoid expensive licenses. Money drives the world and this will never change.
Yes, money drives the world but i hope this will change some day. Perhaps it won't but i'll always dream of this and i'll aways try to reach this.The society has changed in the past and perhaps it will change in this point, too.

Michael

[rjwood]

Thanks all!! I learned alot..;)

[Kimm]

I understand the meaning of this thread, but evil has many more meanings.
If you write a piece of software, then close the source and make it proprietary, then work hard to prevent anyone from ever writing something like that (i.e patents) then you are evil, because what you do heavily damages human intellectual growth and takes away peoples freedom to do whatever you want. This is why the FSF, GNU, RMS, FFII are good and companies like microsoft, are evil.

I can understand to some extent how Linspire and CNR are evil. By selling proprietary software they do support it, but in the mean time they give people freedom of choise in a simple environment, and as their software is not patent encumbered it still encurages freedom and works as a path for people to find the way into the world of linux and F/OSS

[Bragador]

For me evil = selfish

Each time someone promotes or does something that advantages him first, it is evil

For me good = altruism

Each time someone does or promotes something that advantages the community/others first, it is good

For me neutral = the middle

Each time someone does or promotes something that advantages him in a way but advantages the community in another way too, it is neutral.


---

Exemple:

-Stealing money from your girlfriend is evil
-Giving money to someone you don't know is good
-Giving money to a friend knowing he'll help you for something else later since your are kind is neutral.

And for me, most humans are generally neutral.

[Bragador]

I don't blame you Bandit. This is just something that is becoming a recurring theme on the internet like it is some religious holy war. It is just freaking software. I think we need to get a life. :mrgreen:

NONSENSE !

The virtual world is real ! REAAAAL !

AAARGH ! *runs around in circles*

[mstlyevil]

NONSENSE !

The virtual world is real ! REAAAAL !

AAARGH ! *runs around in circles*

ROFLMAO

[rjwood]

Passionate issues result in emotional (not sensible) language.
Which is why I rarely read in those type of threads....

Give me passion/emotion along with mediation. They work so well together. One without other is nonsense. Mediation needs passion/emotion and vise-versa. Plus, who doesn't like rolling around in the mud every now and then?

[mstlyevil]

Give me passion/emotion along with mediation. They work so well together. One without other is nonsense. Mediation needs passion/emotion and vise-versa. Plus, who doesn't like rolling around in the mud every now and then?

Very well said.