Mozilla Announces "Open Web Docs" Following Last Year's Layoffs

[Quackdoc]

you are still confusing socialism with democracy. in democracy majority dictates everything. in socialism you can't have private means of production. and btw average socialist country is not democracy, but controlled by terrorist gang who dictates everything

If you cannot have private ownership, you have to have public ownership, which means the people own it. IF the people own it. it is a majority rule. If it isn't majority rule, the People DO NOT own it. (In which case it becomes something worse like communism)

[Quackdoc]

But socialism is social ownership of the means of production. Not anarchy.

From wikipedia:


Taking control of such means automatically requires being able to modify the source code to your liking.


Unless I'm misunderstanding the situation, in which case please correct me. I'd rather bend my pride and learn instead of being a proud idiot.

when the masses control the means of production, they control the production, for you cannot produce without their approval. The absence of socialism doesn't make for anarchy. FLOSS is much better described by the merits of capitalism. because only in capitalism can someone produce what they want, how they want, and using what they want, and then determine who gets to use said product. where as in socialism all that is controlled by the masses.

You can bend the code to your liking, but only if you get approval by the masses. as your end product, is still a product in it's own right, it is subject to the peoples will, If they, the majority don't like it, they prohibit your use of the computer to make said product. If they do like it, They the majority, decide who gets to use it.

One highly believable example would be guns.

1. You may have an idea to make a personal defense gun, However the majority can say, they don't like it, therefore you are not allowed to use the publically owned tools (which under a socialist government is all tools) to make said product.

2. They like the idea, however you must make it using foambags instead of rubber bullets. therefore you must make it using foambags or they will block means of production.

3. They like the idea, but they don't like every dick and jane owning it, only the police. therefore you are allowed the means of production. however means of exchange are restricted to only police.

This apply for absolutely everything. now imagine they do it with something like a powerful AI. and "the people" are as "Patriotic" as the average "pure blood Chinese"... Now imagine you are Uyghur.

this is why sociallism is a very slippery slope. and why most actual socialist states become totalitarian regimes

[evasb]

After Brendan Eich was fired from Mozilla and Baker took over Mozilla went downhill.

The thing is not about communism or anything, but when your political positions (or if you are PC or not) become more important than your technical expertise for a project. Good things won't happen.

Many projects are putting social justice or your political positions above the thing that really matters: the quality of the software. Mozilla is one of those projects, Baker used Brendan's conservative political position to embarrass him, forcing his resignation. I would never donate a penny to Baker's Mozilla

[pal666]

this is something absolutely fundamental in socialism. because of this the majority dictates everything.

you are still confusing socialism with democracy. in democracy majority dictates everything. in socialism you can't have private means of production. and btw average socialist country is not democracy, but controlled by terrorist gang who dictates everything

[Laughing1]

The left doesn't make libre software they only want stuff for "free". They don't care about software freedom they just want control it and subvert it.

See how they support government monopolies like goolag fazebook,etc that censor people.

[Quackdoc]

you are confusing socialism with democracy. socialism forbids private means of production. i.e. under socialism you can write program only on socially owned computer

when the means of production distribution in exchange of something I controlled by the people, permission is controlled by the people. now permission has to be granted by majority or does not reflect the will of the people.

therefore the people control whether something is or is not built, or distributed. meaning something cannot be built without the permission of the people. which means the people, or the majority which reflects the will of the people can say. no you cannot build that unless you do what we the majority want you to.

this is something absolutely fundamental in socialism. because of this the majority dictates everything. you cannot work unless you abide by the will of the majority, because if not the majority will prohibit the means of production and the means of exchange from you. and when you cannot partake in exchange, you cannot gain.

[kvuj]

imagine if an open source project was subject to control by the masses. they aren't, forking them IS NOT the same thing.

But socialism is social ownership of the means of production. Not anarchy.

From wikipedia:

In a knowledge economy, computers and networks are means of production. In a broad sense, the "means of production" also includes the "means of distribution" such as stores, the internet and railroads (Infrastructural capital).

Taking control of such means automatically requires being able to modify the source code to your liking.


Unless I'm misunderstanding the situation, in which case please correct me. I'd rather bend my pride and learn instead of being a proud idiot.

[pal666]

Sociallism requires something to be regulated by the community

you are confusing socialism with democracy. socialism forbids private means of production. i.e. under socialism you can write program only on socially owned computer

[pal666]

Why not GitLab? If we should use GitHub, we also could simply use Edge

github is used by everyone. unlike edge

[Quackdoc]

The idea that germany, sweden, or really any country that has a free market is socialist is absurd.

But not nearly as absurd as equation FLOSS to socialism. imagine if an open source project was subject to control by the masses. they aren't, forking them IS NOT the same thing.

I can just imagine it now, the kernel's choices being made by popular demand instead of people who actually know what they are doing.

Sociallism requires something to be regulated by the community. which means popular vote. Not only do you suppress minorities. but you supress free development.

Marxism is just a subset of socialism where the community is restricted to the government. if you can start your own business, hire qualified people of your descretion, spoiler alert you have capitalism, not socialism.

EDIT: No free market should be completely uninhibited, restrictions against things like monopolies are a good thing. but its still fundementally capitalism.

Do not mistake social programs, with socialism. they sound the same but they are not the same