Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Smart Scopes Get Removed From Ubuntu 13.04

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by dee. View Post
    Oh my, what a convenient way to sidestep and avoid everything I just said and move right back into crying "wah wah! free software is a religion!" without providing any kind of rational basis or justification for your argument.

    Thanks for playing though! Who's next?
    Yes, "free software only!!" is a religion. Welcome to the real world.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by daniels View Post
      If only there was some kind of sensible middle ground.
      There is, and we're getting there. I'm not opposed to using proprietary software (gasp!) when free alternatives do not exist, as long as that proprietary software behaves reasonably and can be reasonably well assured to be free of any malicious, user-hostile features (this neatly excludes everything microsoft has ever done, hehe) - HOWEVER, and here comes the big but:

      If you start arguing that "it doesn't matter" if software is free or proprietary "as long as it just works", that's when we have a problem. As long as people stop caring about the freedom of their software, they delegate themselves to the position of a passive consumer, and thus abdicate any right whatsoever to complain about the products that the corporate pushes on them. Because free software is exactly that, the freedom to control your own hardware and software, the freedom to choose, the freedom to participate. When you stop caring about the freedom of your software, you give away all of that, and what I described might sound dystopian to you, but if free software didn't exist, that would be exactly the world we would be living in.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by r_a_trip View Post
        Stay with Ubuntu and keep hailing the "convenient" but non-free features and see how fast Ubuntu serves Canonical's needs and not yours. In my experience "just works" is software with the least restrictive licensing and the least dependence on online third party components. Then again, some people like onerous restrictions, so it may be right up your alley.
        And I will, you know. People get tired messing with terminal with little to no profit when you can have a system working out-of-the-box. Again, no wonder why Ubuntu 12.10 64-bit outnumbers all other distributions and versions combined.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Sonadow View Post
          I will take iron-fisted control over anarchy any day. People should have their sense of entitlement cut down to size by being forced to toe the line.

          There is no such thing as freedom without regulations.

          And as a content producer myself I refuse to let anybody have free reign over my copyrighted content without paying any royalties or even seeking approval to distribute it.
          So let me ask you something. Why don't you move to North Korea? It seems like your kind of country. No anarchy, iron-fisted control all the way. No need to think, no need to bother your pretty little head with politics, just smile and do your job like the happy little drone that you are, and maybe you'll get some bread for your wife and 5 kids.

          Just remember to Never question the authority, be a happy little consumer drone, and you won't get sent to the Gulag. (A bit of a mixed metaphor, I know, but I have no idea where Kim sends his political dissidents...)

          Freedom without regulations? Sure, we need regulations. We need regulations to stop corporate interests from taking precedence over fundamental human rights. We need regulations that stop abusive corporate strategies (such as secure boot), we need regulations to stop abuses of the patent system (software patents), abuses of the copyright system (pretty much everything RIAA, MPAA and all their pals do). What we don't need are any more regulations that are simply toothless paper tigers, watered down by neutered, bought politicians, or worse - regulations that pander to corporate interests.

          As a content producer myself, I release all my works under GPL or Creative Commons licenses, granting people the freedom to distribute or modify them on certain terms. As a content producer myself, I can see that the entire idiocy of criminalizing sharing of content is not going to do any good to anyone in the long run and only plays into the pockets of the old gatekeepers. As a content producer myself, I realize that we need to develop better business models that are based on freedom and participation, not pushing products to passive consumers. The war against piracy is already lost, just like the all the other wars against abstract concepts - the big moneybags just refuse to face the facts. It's better to plan your business model around it, taking advantage of it, instead of trying to fight the windmills.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by dee. View Post
            So let me ask you something. Why don't you move to North Korea? It seems like your kind of country. No anarchy, iron-fisted control all the way. No need to think, no need to bother your pretty little head with politics, just smile and do your job like the happy little drone that you are, and maybe you'll get some bread for your wife and 5 kids.

            Just remember to Never question the authority, be a happy little consumer drone, and you won't get sent to the Gulag. (A bit of a mixed metaphor, I know, but I have no idea where Kim sends his political dissidents...)

            Freedom without regulations? Sure, we need regulations. We need regulations to stop corporate interests from taking precedence over fundamental human rights. We need regulations that stop abusive corporate strategies (such as secure boot), we need regulations to stop abuses of the patent system (software patents), abuses of the copyright system (pretty much everything RIAA, MPAA and all their pals do). What we don't need are any more regulations that are simply toothless paper tigers, watered down by neutered, bought politicians, or worse - regulations that pander to corporate interests.

            As a content producer myself, I release all my works under GPL or Creative Commons licenses, granting people the freedom to distribute or modify them on certain terms. As a content producer myself, I can see that the entire idiocy of criminalizing sharing of content is not going to do any good to anyone in the long run and only plays into the pockets of the old gatekeepers. As a content producer myself, I realize that we need to develop better business models that are based on freedom and participation, not pushing products to passive consumers. The war against piracy is already lost, just like the all the other wars against abstract concepts - the big moneybags just refuse to face the facts. It's better to plan your business model around it, taking advantage of it, instead of trying to fight the windmills.
            What a mess. You have neither market nor patents nor whatsoever in NK. Everything is public property, Stallman's dream.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by ворот93 View Post
              What a mess. You have neither market nor patents nor whatsoever in NK. Everything is public property, Stallman's dream.
              Uh no, in North Korea everything is controlled by the state. It's a totalitarian society. There's no such thing as "public property" in North Korea. The definition of "public property" is "belongs to the people". If property is controlled by the state, it by definition cannot be owned by the people.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by dee. View Post
                Uh no, in North Korea everything is controlled by the state. It's a totalitarian society. There's no such thing as "public property" in North Korea. The definition of "public property" is "belongs to the people". If property is controlled by the state, it by definition cannot be owned by the people.
                In economics "public goods and services" = state goods and services. So the argument still stands.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by ворот93 View Post
                  Software is an effing TOOL. You don't pray to it, you are not religious about it. It should WORK.
                  Almost. Free Software is a tool. With proprietary software, you're the tool.

                  Originally posted by ворот93 View Post
                  What a mess. You have neither market nor patents nor whatsoever in NK. Everything is public property, Stallman's dream.
                  First, you're arguing against a straw man. FOSS doesn't mean elimination of private property.

                  Second, you're asserting that intellectual property is a form of property. This forum isn't the best place for an IP debate, but if you want to convince people to see things your way, you shouldn't assume that they agree with contentious premises like that. Keep going like this, and all that's gonna happen is you and the people you're arguing against are just going to keep repeating the same shit back and forth, with both you and them thinking privately, "Can't help it if the idiots don't want to listen to reason."

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by ворот93 View Post
                    In economics "public goods and services" = state goods and services. So the argument still stands.
                    Standard economic theory doesn't apply to totalitarian states where the entire economy is controlled by the state. Our economics are all based on market-based models.

                    Also, what ^he said.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Serge View Post
                      Almost. Free Software is a tool. With proprietary software, you're the tool.
                      Wrong.
                      Originally posted by Serge View Post
                      you're asserting that intellectual property is a form of property. This forum isn't the best place for an IP debate, but if you want to convince people to see things your way, you shouldn't assume that they agree with contentious premises like that. Keep going like this, and all that's gonna happen is you and the people you're arguing against are just going to keep repeating the same shit back and forth, with both you and them thinking privately, "Can't help it if the idiots don't want to listen to reason."
                      Well, too bad that things accepted all around the world are contentious for moon inhabitants on this forum.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by dee. View Post
                        Standard economic theory doesn't apply to totalitarian states where the entire economy is controlled by the state. Our economics are all based on market-based models.

                        Also, what ^he said.
                        Actually, command economy theory is one the basic economic models. It *is* part of economics.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by dee. View Post
                          Standard economic theory doesn't apply to totalitarian states where the entire economy is controlled by the state. Our economics are all based on market-based models.

                          Also, what ^he said.
                          Thanks for supporting what I wrote, dee., which is why I feel particularly bad about what I'm about to write next, but I'm afraid you are wrong when you say that standard economic theory doesn't apply to totalitarian states. The theory behind standard economic theory is that it always applies, everywhere, all the time, regardless of whether the people in charge want to believe it or not.

                          Economics aims to describe the nature of the world we inhabit in impartial terms that facilitate objective decision making. Personally, I think that modern economics comes close, but doesn't quite hit the bull's-eye. But all that means is that we need to correct the errors in our modern economics, not that there are certain classes of state that are immune to economic theory.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by dee. View Post
                            People like you are missing the point about free software. You're too young or ignorant to really understand the idea or what it has given to you.

                            Try to imagine a world without free software. A world where every program is developed in secrecy and sold by corporations. Where there are no hackers or coders who do it for the sheer enjoyment of coding, instead only worker drones for large software corporations pushing code in a thankless 9-5 cubicle. Users are all demoted to the role of passive consumption, instead of active participation. You won't be able to control what your computer does, as you're only it's user - there's no ideology to support the idea that a user must have full control of their hardware, so every computer, every OS, is riddled with DRM and trusted computing schemes. If you try to copy files that are marked as copyrighted, your computer won't let you. If you try to save eg. video streams on your hard disk, your computer won't let you. Every time you try to perform an action your computer/OS manufacturer has deemed illegal, probably because it goes against other corporate interests, your computer just goes "I can't let you do that, Dave" and maybe reports you on some universal naughty list. There's no such thing as net neutrality, tor, piratism, freedom of speech - all is controlled by corporate interest. No peer-to-peer networks exist, everything follows a top-down passive consumption model.

                            See, THAT is the world your "convenience" brings you. That is the cost of ignoring freedom. Free software is not a religion, it is a way to guarantee that the user has some power against the corporations, that the user is in control of their hardware and software. It's digital activism. Hacker ethics. Stallman might be extreme in his views, but it's good that someone like him exists, to bring a balance to all these greedy sellouts who'd forget their free software roots in a heartbeat to make a quick buck.

                            Those who would give up freedom for convenience deserve neither.
                            +1

                            I seldom post in these forums, but i had to post to say "f*ck yes" to this.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by ворот93 View Post
                              Well, too bad that things accepted all around the world are contentious for moon inhabitants on this forum.
                              That's the problem with bubbles. IP abolitionists visit sites and forums that already support their view, and hence have a distorted view of the world. IP maximalists visit sites and forums that already support their view, and hence have a distorted view of the world. There are incredibly few centrists in the IP debates. So, go on thinking that everyone outside of here believes that IP is a form of natural property. You are not going to make progress until you acknowledge the existence and proliferation of counter-arguments, and attempt to meet them in the middle.

                              Well, actually, you are going to make progress, lots of progress, because your side has more lobby money to spend. That's not justice, or the triumph of logic, or whatever. It's just plain old brute force.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Serge View Post
                                Thanks for supporting what I wrote, dee., which is why I feel particularly bad about what I'm about to write next, but I'm afraid you are wrong when you say that standard economic theory doesn't apply to totalitarian states. The theory behind standard economic theory is that it always applies, everywhere, all the time, regardless of whether the people in charge want to believe it or not.

                                Economics aims to describe the nature of the world we inhabit in impartial terms that facilitate objective decision making. Personally, I think that modern economics comes close, but doesn't quite hit the bull's-eye. But all that means is that we need to correct the errors in our modern economics, not that there are certain classes of state that are immune to economic theory.
                                Well, you might be right, I'm not really that intimate with modern economic theory. And don't feel bad, I'm not opposed to being corrected when I'm wrong about something. Maybe what I'm trying to say is that the economic models that govern current western economic system (ie. capitalism) are based on models of free-market economy. Some assert that any central regulation goes against free markets, but I don't think that is true - a total lack of regulation would not provide a free market, as it would simply allow whoever has the most capital to control the markets. Fair competition is, in my view, prerequisite for a truly free market.

                                How much the current markets are really "free" is debatable, though. I think what we need are better safeguards against corporate influence on policy. Currently corporations and their lobby groups can pretty much write policy as they want, and most politicians are simply acting as rubber stamps for them. We need to find more ways to incentivize politicians to cater to public interest.

                                But this is getting a bit off topic...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X