Had forgot about this thread for a few days, found some of the following snippets pretty funny though and figured I would jump back in for a minute.
For all intents and purposes I am actually quite apolitical and take as little part in politics as possible; as long as I get to do the work I enjoy every day I couldn't care less what the government does. I find both the liberals and the conservatives to be quite off the mark on most subjects and they seem to be melding into one as time passes. For the sake of discussion though I suppose my own opinions are egalitarian in nature. I believe all people are equal and should be treated as such, both in rights and accountability. Unless we lived in a perfect ideal world I would never for a second espouse any desire to totally eliminate the government. In a world with plenty of messed up people it is useful to have some government. To me though government should be mostly limited to ensuring public health and safety, which includes some business oversight to keep greed in check enough to prevent intentional harm to the public. I believe that people are generally selfish in nature and in fact our selfishness is what drives us to voluntarily cooperate with others. To live comfortably and indulge in our personal interests we need a wide array of resources and skills that we can't possibly acquire on our own, so it is in our best interest to seek out and help others who can help us; to me this is what society is based on. Too often the government has little to do with it other than as an avenue for those with a fondness for power to take advantage of others, and often those same people are the ones deeply involved with private interests as well. Both sides are rife with sociopaths and one can only hope that there are enough honest people involved to help keep them in check. This is still mostly idealist talk though, the world is a complicated place and finding the right balance of appropriate government intervention is a constantly moving target and well outside the scope of my interests.
Yes, you got me; I have been affected by your "challenges", so much so that I post here to try and make a difference in the world, because we all know how much sway the Phoronix forums have when it comes to changing the minds and will of the people worldwide. There is absolutely no chance that I come here as one of several excuses to shirk off work when I need a break and want to keep up with gossip on Linux current events and to occasionally have a laugh when people say stupid things. Yes, I only respond when my world view has been rocked and feel a need to defend myself, I would never ever comment here for purely entertainment value. Ok, I got to stop now before I find myself coaching the Phoronix sarcastaball team.
I have been quite enjoying how you continue to skirt around the topic of your statement that infrastructure wouldn't exist without governments by trying to turn the focus on me rather than just admitting it was a stupid thing to say with no basis in reality. I do also like how you keep claiming that government funding is what keeps infrastructure afloat without acknowledging that governments can only spend what they can extort from others, primarily from private citizens and businesses who can afford to pay them because of the success of private interests. So basically even when an infrastructure is acquire by a government, it is still funded by proceeds taken from private sources, and then most of that funding usually winds up in the pockets of private contractors who will often use some of their new found wealth to buy influence with the politicians in charge so that they can go on abusing the system.
When you get down to it, infrastructure rises out of the demands of commerce and that has always been the realm of the private sector. When a government gets involved it is usually for political reasons or to make the war machine more efficient, such as with the roadworks of the Roman Empire and the interstate highway system here in the states. Here is an interesting article on this: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jimpowel...dges-possible/
As to that rather disingenuous Forbes article, I fully accept that merchants formed the initial trade routes that would become roads. That does not change the fact that without state support those roads would not have been maintained. The silk road, for instance, only came to prominence because of significant support by the Mongol and Russian Empires, mostly in the form of security. A public force is needed in order for public services to function, and a roadway can only be successful if it can be used by all who need to use it. That article ignores that aspect.
In fact, I find the conclusion to that article to be nigh on offensive, with its snidely comment about America's economic growth as compared to the Soviet Union. No matter what you think of the latter, anyone with a view of real economics must admit that going from a feudal state to an industrial powerhouse, and then having to do it all over again in the course of five years after being bombed flat by an invading foreign army, is a very impressive achievement no matter how it was bought. The fact that Russia still exists as a powerhouse is still even more impressive. America had none of this, it never had this crucible. So try being flattened before bragging about your economic miracles.
But at least you are trying to back up your claims now.
One can not exist without the other.
/*cuts rant to simple two line post*\
What's worse, instead of realizing he's upset people and taking a conciliatory tone, Linus ups the obnoxiousness in this post, stokes the flames and belittles those with a different opinion. This post reads from top to bottom as "your concerns don't exist". It's all "water cooler gossip" or something else imaginary. "There's nothing to see here; move along". That's not going to work for him either.
Linux is saddled with Richard Stallman's anti-social behavior, rants and general luddite tendencies on the one hand and Linus Torvalds' positive EMBRACE of being offensive on the other (hint: telling people to kill themselves in an age when we realize bullying causes just that isn't going to fly). What Linux really needs is a spokesperson who's not a complete embarrassing social misfit (giving the middle finger to companies does not make them want to work with you more, surprisingly enough). Stephen Fry did a Linux video a while ago; maybe he could become the new face of Linux? I'm tired of cringing whenever Stallman or Torvalds' name pops up in the news, because I know it's almost invariably going to be something embarrassing that will make Linux and/or open source look bad.
If you consider him to be a social misfit, I wouldn't even want to know the society you're living in.
Nevertheless, having Steven Fry as a public figure to promote GNU/Linux for what it is (not Linux, the kernel only, for god's sake!), that would be great, under the condition he does it right and _not_ wrong like you do.
Maybe you should read some books about the topic (Free as in Freedom 2 [free PDF available], Free Software Free Society [free PDF available], ...) to prevent yourself from writing embarassing posts like this one in the future.
Yeah, Stephen Fry, a man who feels acute separation anxiety anytime he is expected to walk a few steps away from his iPhone, would make a great spokesman for free software. Right. :rolleyes: