The identi.ca discussion on this[1] is fairly interesting and, I think, illustrates some of the zealotry that Mark Shuttleworth was hinting at in his Slashdot p

The identi.ca discussion on this[1] is fairly interesting and, I think, illustrates some of the zealotry that Mark Shuttleworth was hinting at in his Slashdot post. Nicolas Delvaux[2] made a very clear post admitting that Mark didn't choose his words carefully (implying he disagreed with the way Mark presented his argument), but nonetheless he agreed with the underlying point: > Mark doesn't always choose his words wisely but I agree with his point. We can be confident that 100% free software will win in the long run [b]ut this won't happen if we don't increase our market share first. To get there we need to be pragmatic about users needs. Usable computers for example. A non-free driver is better than nothing for the people out there who don't care about licences. That is a totally reasonable argument, and I sensed right away that Nicolas was distancing himself from the inflammatory rhetoric and attacking the underlying point itself, which is a good one. I totally agree with that point, but I don't see myself ever saying that to Bradley Kuhn's face because even though Nicolas was very careful to highlight the form of the argument as distasteful, Bradley still sidestepped the (good) opinion and badgered Nicolas to death regarding Mark Shuttleworth's rhetoric: > @delvauxnic, I'm sorry to seethat you agree w/ @sabdfl that those of us opposed to proprietary !Linux drivers are insecure McCarthyist dicks I do not see Nicolas ever saying that. Look at the rest of the post! He's talking about long-term FOSS strategy, not Communism! He agreed with the underlying argument, not the delivery. I've encountered this before, and it's sidestepping a salient argument based on one tiny inconvenience that can be pounced upon. Nicolas never agreed with the comparison to McCarthyism, but Bradley Kuhn pounced on that straw man quite deftly. > @delvauxnic, saying @sabdfl "didn't chose his words wisely" says "Not that I would say that, but he's right". You didn't say he was wrong. The first part of this observation is untrue, and the second part is an irrational expectation for discussion. I can agree with the substance of an argument without agreeing with the way it was delivered or the specific words that make it up, and I am NOT required to apologize for someone else's remarks, tone, or delivery in doing so. Because Nicolas refused to do that, Bradley left this parting shot: > @delvauxnic, it was more than the "form" that's wrong. It's wrong to call people those things. You & I 've nothing more to discuss, it seems Completely ignore the point, keep attacking the same thing. Since you won't argue with what Bradley desires you to argue with, you will be shut down with a final dismissal. It's just distasteful, and I hate when a reasonable conversation gets punctuated with an icy "well, go fuck yourself, we have nothing left to talk about if that's your opinion". I've left out the actual discussion about the point that Bradley did participate in, because this sort of stuff is just as bad as Mark's comments, in my opinion, and it makes it just as tough to have a reasonable conversation. This is why I hate having any kind of discussion with people who are passionate about their beliefs with respect to capital-F Free software. I'm sorry to single out the group, but this is quite demonstrably how every discussion I've had that's critical of Free software has gone. There is no middle ground. It's all us and them. Either you're all the way, or you're part of the problem. I seem to recall reading a Stallman essay that even outright said that. It is simply impossible to argue and, eventually, you will have the door slammed on you regardless of your point. I am not claiming that Nicolas's argument was perfect, but he made some extraordinarily salient points and I wish Bradley had addressed those rather than badger him personally for daring to agree. [1]: http://identi.ca/conversation/97515496 http://identi.ca/conversation/97515496 [2]: http://blog.malizor.org/ http://blog.malizor.org/