2 ms·

> I just wanted to point out how it is absurd to simply claim that "as long as people keep recommending recompiling stuff open source won't work" when actually

> I just wanted to point out how it is absurd to simply claim that "as long as people keep recommending recompiling stuff open source won't work" when actually A) people recommend it _because you can actually do it_ , unlike alternatives B) being able to recompile stuff is actually a major if not the main strength of free software, so it is a strange argument to point it as a negative. And my reply to that is, in the context of mainstreaming Linux to the wider computer using audience, that's ridiculous. You might as well tell every person who owns a car to never pay for repairs again, because you can, via the proper hardware, reprogram the ECM. That "solution" applies only to an interested subculture of (awesome) people who hack shit. To say to my aunt Doris that Ubuntu can be better for her to use than Windows and then require her to learn a fair bit of bash script and C# to complete that journey is ridiculous.

AshamedCaptain 6y ago
> You might as well tell every person who owns a car to never pay for repairs again, because you can, via the proper hardware, reprogram the ECM. No one, absolutely no one is saying that (specially the part about "never pay for repairs again" -- another common nonsense). What I am saying is that between a otherwise-identical non-reprogrammable ECM and a reprogrammable ECM, the objectively better choice is the reprogrammable ECM. Because even if you don't know how to do it, you at least have the choice to let someone else do it. It doesn't matter if you personally do or don't understand how to reprogram ECMs. The choice is still clear. > my aunt Doris that Ubuntu can be better for her to use than Windows and then require her to learn a fair bit of bash script and C# to complete that journey is ridiculous. Your aunt Doris doesn't have to learn C#. But she _has_ the option to, she has the option to follow the instructions from someone she apparently read on the Internet (what motivated this discussion, I thought), AND she has the option to convince/hire someone to do it for her. When your aunt Doris hits the same issue with Windows, .... she's stuck! Better luck with Apple! I suggest that if you have any interest whatsoever in free software, spend some time to understand this aspect, because it can and does reframe the discussion. If you remove the free part from "free software", what remains is basically just software; the same as any other piece of software, a rotting bug-laden piece of shit. Why deny this feature?

AshamedCaptain 6y ago

> You might as well tell every person who owns a car to never pay for repairs again, because you can, via the proper hardware, reprogram the ECM. No one, absolutely no one is saying that (specially the part about "never pay for repairs again" -- another common nonsense). What I am saying is that between a otherwise-identical non-reprogrammable ECM and a reprogrammable ECM, the objectively better choice is the reprogrammable ECM. Because even if you don't know how to do it, you at least have the choice to let someone else do it. It doesn't matter if you personally do or don't understand how to reprogram ECMs. The choice is still clear. > my aunt Doris that Ubuntu can be better for her to use than Windows and then require her to learn a fair bit of bash script and C# to complete that journey is ridiculous. Your aunt Doris doesn't have to learn C#. But she _has_ the option to, she has the option to follow the instructions from someone she apparently read on the Internet (what motivated this discussion, I thought), AND she has the option to convince/hire someone to do it for her. When your aunt Doris hits the same issue with Windows, .... she's stuck! Better luck with Apple! I suggest that if you have any interest whatsoever in free software, spend some time to understand this aspect, because it can and does reframe the discussion. If you remove the free part from "free software", what remains is basically just software; the same as any other piece of software, a rotting bug-laden piece of shit. Why deny this feature?