3 ms·

> In practice this is difficult (but not impossible) to achieve Why? Without going looking at particular FLOSS situations, this is just defining the word "prac

by sedachv 12y ago

> In practice this is difficult (but not impossible) to achieve Why? Without going looking at particular FLOSS situations, this is just defining the word "practice" to mean "difficult to achieve." In "practice," Linux on mobile phones was difficult in 2007 and is easy today. > I'm not saying you don't have a valid viewpoint, but you don't have to make up your own version of what I said and attribute it to me to make your point. You can argue on your own merits and not resort to grade school tactics (at least I hope you can). I'm not arguing with you, I am pointing out that your assumptions are vague and your conclusions circular. There is not a single "practice" that just happens to be some bad guy opposing FLOSS because he hates your freedoms. Is Linux on the phone a good thing? Android benefits a tremendous amount from Linux but at the same time Android phones are locked down black boxes with huge privacy risks. So it's one step forward for FLOSS practice, two steps backward for privacy theory. People accuse Stallman of being impractical, but stricter adherence to theory (GPLv3) would have prevented the practical problems of locked bootloaders on Android phones. It's not as simple as saying "theory easy, practice hard."

morganvachon 12y ago
> There is not a single "practice" that just happens to be some bad guy opposing FLOSS because he hates your freedoms. And once again, that's something I never said, nor inferred. I won't continue to have a discussion with someone who insists on twisting words and making up shit to chase an ever-changing point of view. I stand by what I actually said: 100% Free and Open Source software is a noble ideal and a powerful tool in the fight for digital freedoms, but in reality it's difficult (but not impossible) to achieve such a state. No matter what, we must continue to strive for that goal.
- Dylan16807 12y ago
  Your words: >100% Free and Open Source software is a noble ideal and a powerful tool in the fight for digital freedoms, but in reality it's difficult (but not impossible) to achieve such a state. >In practice this is difficult (but not impossible) to achieve sedachv's words: > What you're really saying is that working against the development of surveillance and control technologies by private capital and government decision makers is hard and so is not "practical." Those look like exactly the same statement to me. >> There is not a single "practice" that just happens to be some bad guy opposing FLOSS because he hates your freedoms. >And once again, that's something I never said, nor inferred. ...that sentence is not accusing you of saying that practice is a person. sedachv is pointing out that practice is not a coherent whole, that's all. I don't know why you're accusing sedachv of twisting words. sedachv 'merely' accused you of being intellectually lazy for using difficulty to declare something as not practical.
  - morganvachon 12y ago
    It's pretty simple: He's accusing me of having given up, whereas I've been saying all along that we should continue to fight the good fight and not give up. He says: > What you're really saying is that working against the development of surveillance and control technologies by private capital and government decision makers is hard and so is not "practical." -- when I never once said that. His words imply that I said I gave up, and I never did, in fact quite the opposite. Maybe he takes issue with the fact that I acknowledge that it's a difficult fight, not an easy one, but whatever. I said what I came to say and I stand by it.
    - sedachv 12y ago
      > Maybe he takes issue with the fact that I acknowledge that it's a difficult fight, not an easy one, but whatever. Let me repeat this for the third time: the only thing I object to about your original post is the use of the cliche "it's not practical!" argument. Saying "it's difficult" is one thing, because the obvious next question is "what makes it difficult?" Saying "it's not practical" is a lazy way to shut a conversation down and by implication accuse whoever is advocating the "impractical" point of view of having a poor grasp of reality.

by sedachv 12y ago

morganvachon 12y ago

> There is not a single "practice" that just happens to be some bad guy opposing FLOSS because he hates your freedoms. And once again, that's something I never said, nor inferred. I won't continue to have a discussion with someone who insists on twisting words and making up shit to chase an ever-changing point of view. I stand by what I actually said: 100% Free and Open Source software is a noble ideal and a powerful tool in the fight for digital freedoms, but in reality it's difficult (but not impossible) to achieve such a state. No matter what, we must continue to strive for that goal.

Dylan16807 12y ago
Your words: >100% Free and Open Source software is a noble ideal and a powerful tool in the fight for digital freedoms, but in reality it's difficult (but not impossible) to achieve such a state. >In practice this is difficult (but not impossible) to achieve sedachv's words: > What you're really saying is that working against the development of surveillance and control technologies by private capital and government decision makers is hard and so is not "practical." Those look like exactly the same statement to me. >> There is not a single "practice" that just happens to be some bad guy opposing FLOSS because he hates your freedoms. >And once again, that's something I never said, nor inferred. ...that sentence is not accusing you of saying that practice is a person. sedachv is pointing out that practice is not a coherent whole, that's all. I don't know why you're accusing sedachv of twisting words. sedachv 'merely' accused you of being intellectually lazy for using difficulty to declare something as not practical.
- morganvachon 12y ago
  It's pretty simple: He's accusing me of having given up, whereas I've been saying all along that we should continue to fight the good fight and not give up. He says: > What you're really saying is that working against the development of surveillance and control technologies by private capital and government decision makers is hard and so is not "practical." -- when I never once said that. His words imply that I said I gave up, and I never did, in fact quite the opposite. Maybe he takes issue with the fact that I acknowledge that it's a difficult fight, not an easy one, but whatever. I said what I came to say and I stand by it.
  - sedachv 12y ago
    > Maybe he takes issue with the fact that I acknowledge that it's a difficult fight, not an easy one, but whatever. Let me repeat this for the third time: the only thing I object to about your original post is the use of the cliche "it's not practical!" argument. Saying "it's difficult" is one thing, because the obvious next question is "what makes it difficult?" Saying "it's not practical" is a lazy way to shut a conversation down and by implication accuse whoever is advocating the "impractical" point of view of having a poor grasp of reality.