help-gnu-emacs
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Icon designer wanted (Aquamacs Emacs)


From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Icon designer wanted (Aquamacs Emacs)
Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2006 22:41:57 -0600
User-agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (darwin)

David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:

> Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> writes:
>
>> David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:
>>
>>> Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> "Luis O. Silva" <l.o.silva@mail.ru> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 00:59:49 -0600, Tim McNamara writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>    TM> I've yet to find a GNU/Linux or BSD system that is as
>>>>>    TM> good to use as OS X.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not a matter of how well something works. The only way to
>>>>> go is that of freedom.
>>>>
>>>> How well software works is a central issue in getting people to
>>>> use it.
>>>
>>> It is a secondary consideration for free software.  The primary
>>> motivator is freedom.  If it weren't, free software would not
>>> exist, since the beginnings of free software were almost
>>> necessarily technically inferior to proprietary offerings.  Free
>>> software owes its existence to its freedoms, not its usefulness.
>>> If you sacrifice the freedom for the sake of usefulness, you'll
>>> lose both in the end.
>>
>> And vice-versa, David.
>
> No, not vice-versa.  Reread the paragraph you quoted until you
> understand it.

David, what you are writing is not exactly rocket science.  The fact
that I disagree with you is not evidence of incomprehension.

>> I am baffled that you seem to be unable to see that.  Free useless
>> software is simply irrelevant and contributes nothing.  Free
>> difficult-to-use software risks being irrelevant and contributing
>> little.
>
> But free software _was_ difficult to use from its inception.  Your
> argument is contradicted by history.  

It was a clone of the proprietary software that it was intended to be
an alternative to.  The proprietary software was also difficult to
use.  Times have changed, the expectations of the users has changed,
and free software has to change with that to remain relevant.

> If everybody had chosen convenience over freedom, you'd not have
> anything to whine about now.

LOL, you do seem to love to denigrate your audience.  Ad hominem-
whether blatant or implied- is neither pretty nor effective.

> Granted, few people choose freedom over convenience.  But since the
> consequences of their choice remain with us, they can still make a
> difference, and that's the power of free software.  Regardless of its
> weaknesses, you can't squash it.

Nor am I trying to.  I am merely pointing out that the type of
attitude you are displaying runs the risk of sinking free software or
continuing its marginalized existence.

> By now, most of the traditional Unix market has been flattened by
> Linux.  

Ummm, in some parts of the market.  Not in others.  Now, I happen to
think that it's a good thing that GNU/Linux and the various free BSDs
have had some success.  I also think it's telling that the most
successful BSD- and arguably the most successful Unix clone- is the
one underpinning OS X.

> And the reason is that the Unix competition required companies to
> fight for the best reinvention of the wheel.  The power of free
> software is that the best wheel from everybody gets picked, and then
> people move on.  The steps may be tiny, but they move on.
>
> And that is why fiendishly-difficult-to-use free software crawled
> into being and did not vanish off the chart.  Lose the freedom, and
> it goes down the drain as soon as the initial impetus is gone.

You've still missed the point.  And you seem to have no interest in
getting it.  So, cheers!  I think you're wrong and narrow-sighted, but
it's clear I can write nothing you would find acceptable except a
wholesale embrasure of your position.  Since I think you're wrong and
do not find your arguments compelling, that's not going to happen.
Good luck to you and GNU.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]