Diego Saravia wrote:
>-------> MESSAGE ORIGINAL
>>While at present there are no viruses, trojans, spyware and other things
>>of note on Linux, it is wrong to expect people to switch on this basis.
>
>people is already switching on these basis
And people are switching back as well, for lack of support. Raising
expectations is a dangerous thing, and can have a nasty boomerang effect.
>>It is realistic to consider that as Linux is used more and more,
>>these things will happen with Linux. This argument will not stand
>>the test of time, as many other things will not.
>
>There are technical diferences in / design model / social model /
>development process / error correction/ between windows and gnulinux. It
>is easier to develop these kind of attacks in windows by now. Nothing
>will stand the test of time, but windows will not survive long time, linux
>neither, but 3 or 4 more years than windows.
These are interesting forecasts, but I believe them wrong.
>>But my opinion is that if someone agrees to a contract, they are bound by
>>that contract.
>
>There are more things than a contract, there is a law, copyright law,
>applied to a non intelectual work, as a binary code.
But a contract supercedes a law since it is an agreement between two or
more parties. It is only when a license is considered *unlawful* that it
is considered illegal.
We live in a world of laws, it is our responsibility to understand the
laws. There are unfair contract clauses throughout the world, but how
often are they used? And by whom? One would think that if these laws
were useful, they would have been used already.
Accountability is key. One cannot be free without paying the price of
responsibility; one cannot gain independence otherwise.
>>To people who do not feel accountable for their own actions, Free
>>Software and Proprietary software are just things to be used. They
>>didn't care about anyone's rights from the start - so how can you give
>>them more rights? Does anyone think that the children who play games
>>really want the source code, and that they really care that giving it to
>>a friend breaks some licensing agreement?
>
>A lot of people do not care about politics, even they dont vote, but they
>have rights.
I never spoke of politics, but I believe you are falling into the folly of
politics and democracy being one and the same. Verily, democracy was
established to minimize and counter politics. Of course, so was
Communism. Most people don't understand the roots of the ideologies.
However, politics is not a form of government - it's what government was
supposed to have been created to avoid.
>Some childrens will want source code, probably future programers. Now they
>are hackers, and they are learning how to change scores and things like that.
>Not all the childrens open they toys, and try to rebuild they, but the
>ones that do, will be future engineers.
>Some people cares, other not, some people want to read source, others want
>to know that they can even if the will not do by themselves.
You see my point, then. Thank you.
>>The difference has a lot to do with accountability, and it's a cultural
>>issue. It has nothing to do with viruses, worms, trojans, spyware or cost.
>
>Someone ask why are people changing, a lot of people is changing because
>of cost,viruses, etc.. These are the driving forces of the change. There
>are more important issues, as you mention.
>
>>What one does with liberty, with freedom... that is what this is about.
>
>to build a better world.
What is a 'better world'? Ask 10 people, you will get 10 different
answers. Most of them won't include software.
>>They will co-exist, because they are not competing systems. Free
>>Software is simply what software was before proprietary licensing came
>>along, enforced by copyright. Proprietary software will be around as long
>>as people do not wish to find themselves accountable.
>
>Microsoft agree with me, that only one model will survive.
Agreeing with your enemy doesn't make you right.
>This point is an economy issue. Two thing that do the same, one cheaper.
They are two things, but they are not the same. Consider fruit: both an
apple and orange are fruit, but one does not eat them interchangeably.
>>Free Software means rights, it means responsibilities... it means
>>knowing what your software is supposed to do instead of a large company
>>telling you what your software should do. Many people simply don't care -
>>either out of ignorance or out of intellectual laziness. I see it as
>>senseless to argue with people about their operating system and how it
>>impinges on my freedom - their individual software does not impinge on my
>>freedom.
>
>A lot of people dont care about politics, but we live in a world without
>slavery now (allmost). The world changes, even if a lot of people dont care.
Everyone cares about politics, nobody cares about government. Politics
is about maintaining castes.
It's because that a lot of people don't care that the world is the way it
is, and these preceding changes that have created this world. Many people
don't feel that they can have an effect - and individually, this is true.
But if you get large groups of individuals discussing things, common ground
will appear and from there advances will be made. This is where Free
Software wins.
Taran Rampersad
Este archivo fue generado por hypermail 2.1.3 : Tue Jan 4 10:02:49 2005 AST