4 ms·

>You are the guy lambasting Gallileo, and when Gallileo asks you why heliocentrism offends you, you are replying "because the mainstream clergy sees you as kook

>You are the guy lambasting Gallileo, and when Gallileo asks you why heliocentrism offends you, you are replying "because the mainstream clergy sees you as kooks." I'm lambasting the people who think this fictional Galileo is a good public persona to lead their political movement, because this Galileo can't convince anyone of anything because he is almost entirely devoid of the skills one needs to advance a political cause even if Galileo might have written some good C code 45 years ago. >If users cared enough to understand the difference, you and I both know they would accuse the businesses of being the irrelevant kooks. Not a single "maintream user" I know would defend Apple or Google or Microsoft's business practices as software companies. No one. I can see we have irreconcilable differences. I find this statement ludicrous. I know lots of people who understand what free software is and choose to make a living selling proprietary software. This will be my last reply to you.

talldayo 2y ago
> I know lots of people who understand what free software is and choose to make a living selling proprietary software. That's not what I asked you, though. Do those same people defend Microsoft and Google and Apple's business strategies? Do they respect what the apex of proprietary software looks like, replete with advertising, data collection, vaporware promises, removed features, integrated spyware and mandatory junk fees? Unless your friends are an LLM, I suspect they don't, because they've been burned before and know better. As no serious economist promotes laissez faire economics in the 21st century, laissez faire software is not healthy for humans either. The abuses are right in front of us, and the blame is simple to dole out. It's for your own good that you stop replying to my comments if you're going to twist my words and avoid the topic. Free software isn't bound by the pragmatic demands of a market, and yes, that means that it can fail, but it can also end up displacing entire product categories as well. Anyone familiar with the past 3 decades of computing history knows this to be an irrevocable and proven fact. We would not be having this conversation on the internet if proprietary networking standards prevailed over open ones.

talldayo 2y ago

> I know lots of people who understand what free software is and choose to make a living selling proprietary software. That's not what I asked you, though. Do those same people defend Microsoft and Google and Apple's business strategies? Do they respect what the apex of proprietary software looks like, replete with advertising, data collection, vaporware promises, removed features, integrated spyware and mandatory junk fees? Unless your friends are an LLM, I suspect they don't, because they've been burned before and know better. As no serious economist promotes laissez faire economics in the 21st century, laissez faire software is not healthy for humans either. The abuses are right in front of us, and the blame is simple to dole out. It's for your own good that you stop replying to my comments if you're going to twist my words and avoid the topic. Free software isn't bound by the pragmatic demands of a market, and yes, that means that it can fail, but it can also end up displacing entire product categories as well. Anyone familiar with the past 3 decades of computing history knows this to be an irrevocable and proven fact. We would not be having this conversation on the internet if proprietary networking standards prevailed over open ones.