Re: Linux is SHIT

[Barak Zalstein]

"David Kastrup" <dak@gnu.org> wrote in message
x57jv2hrsw.fsf@lola.goethe.zz">news:x57jv2hrsw.fsf@lola.goethe.zz...
> > 2. Making a computer usable for people who really need the
> > connectivity and functionality but don't have the skills/resources
> > to install, administrate, troubleshoot, read, modify and
> > redistribute a free solution yet (GNU is not always technically
> > better nor easier).
>
> You have no clue.  My 68 year old mother uses a Linux box for word
> processing and Email and stuff.
>
I think I have a little clue.
There's a difference between approaching an already set-up standard machine,
launching a tutorial and
following the instructions, and between partitioning, setting up dial-up
settings, compiling the kernel, and googling
for serial numbers of your hardware.
If this hardware is the only way you connect to the outside world (that
qualifies as "critical") you will see
very little moral problems when infringing copyrights of its drivers or
specifically tailored distros.

> > > > as a criminal activity (just do that outside of corporate
> > > > environment).
> > >
> > > The question is not what I consider criminal, but what the laws
> > > consider criminal.  That is what will get your computers confiscated
> > > and you jailed or fined.
> > >
> > > > What if this attitude was taught (and enforced) in school?
> > >
> > > To obey the laws?  Actually, that attitude _is_ taught in school.
> > >
> > Can't argue there.  Breaking the law is a bad idea, unless you see
> > the law as unjustified enough for you to encourage civilian
> > disobediance (hopefully in large quantities).
>
> Breaking the law is a bad idea, period.  And you have no clue what
> civilian disobedience is.  Covert petty crime isn't.
>
I think that I have a clue here as well.
If the example was about outlawing writing free software instead of
distributing illegal Windows copies, free software would continue to be
written against the law.
The point is that law is not always aligned with ethics, and the incentive
to break
the law is culturaly oriented - higher whenever it is considered harmless or
unenforced enough.
In Israel where I live,  high-tech companies need to be very strictly
compliant with the BSA while
computer stores and home users (yes even those day-job VPs and CEOs), adhere
to very different
standard behavior.
Of course that you could argue that this means nothing. Or maybe you'll see
that distributing "pirated"
Windows versions is natural and good, unless people are scared from being
punished. Which means
that this particualar law exists for narrow commercial interests and should
be debugged/cancelled.

> > and thus accept proprietness to some extent,
>
> Please look up the definition of "proprietary" in a dictionary.
>
Don't most commercial Linux distros restrict copying using one way or
another, if not with non-GPL components, than with trademarks and logos?
Nothing wrong with that, otherwise free speech ==> free beer.
And if you want your software to be supported by that specific distro
vendor, you will have to participate, even
though you are not forced to, you never do.

Barak.