calling for a 2019 floss boycott and for rms to step down

[nosystemdthanks]

Reminds me of Property Owner's Associations fighting over whether to allow someone to paint their house pink, whether their neighbor's fence is 6 inches too high or someone has a boat parked in their driveway.

At least it keeps them busy so they aren't bothering people who have more serious things to deal with.

how do you ever arrive at the attitude that makes you forget these people are the very reason that puppy linux exists?

there is no "more serious things to deal with" without free software.

the linux kernel wouldnt be worth using with the gpl, open source would look more like apple than puppy (anyone who thinks that would be a good thing hasnt thought it through-- would you really throw puppy linux-- and everything like it-- away for nothing but the apple ecosystem?) and these "more serious" endeavours youre thinking about wouldnt have a platform to exist on.

it would be like einstein talking crap about isaac newton all day.

"well, i mean, newtons great if all you care about is a weights moving on a string" hello? without teslas motor and voltaires battery, edisons light bulb would just be a worthless old jar with a wire in it. this isnt about paint jobs.

if you want to know who the property owners association is, read some bryan lunduke or jono bacon, or the osi blogs.

these are the guys that are most often like "well, i mean carpenters and plumbers are important-- i guess, but until the interior decorators come in the houses arent even worth putting up for sale."

kind of true, except that the most important thing about a house for most people is that you can live in it, not that you can profit substantially.

"do you remember your first home?"

"sure do! we got 350,000 for that bastard!"

"how very touching."

[nosystemdthanks]

I have been using Linux for almost 20 years, and I am familiar with all the other abbreviations, but I have never seen the expression floss before.

its more recent. not new, but newer than "foss" and even open source is a newer phrase than "free software." the ambiguity they create serves one side only, and at a cost to the other. microsoft does the same thing with their new "<3 linux" campaign.

some people actually think that its a mark of quality and respect that microsoft will deal with open source but avoid free software. everything that linus torvalds says about the free software movement is in this context, but also avoids this context.

other people who already know from experience that open source advocacy is dubious and deeply corporate, understand that microsoft prefers open source because open source is more sympathetic to their goals/marketing/manipulation and infamous dirty tactics.

which imo, says a great deal about linus torvalds.

as to the notion that free software cant court microsoft-- why would they even want to? theyre natural enemies. whoever thinks they should "kiss and make up" is ignoring history, or reason. but yet torvalds himself has absurdly implied just that.

I think you americans often get hung up in words, which may stem from your judicial system, where the letter of a law seem to take priority over the intention of the law. It sometimes shift the focus in a debate from the actual subjects to the description of them. Not always easy to follow.

while i dont entirely disagree with that, open source is a different group of people who like to mislead people about the group they split off from, and take turns conflating their own splitoff group and with the original and then saying things that hint at "but only we really matter at this point."

theyre also even heavier quibblers about the meanings of words "oh, free is so confusing!" but they love apple. its just silly. theyre simply denying context. "free as in freedom" is more of a retort. "ok, well, 'free as in freedom' then."

when people quibble about free software vs open source, its not about two phrases that mean pretty much the same thing-- its about two different groups doing entirely different fundraising, with very different goals, different approaches, different values--

akin to saying "look, some people vote green and some vote libertarian, but its the same party, stop quibbling about the names."

and if only the green party did that, then boasted they were most "successful" (by different standards of success, no less... apples and oranges all the way to the bank) it might be worth saying "well, thats because youre lying all the time and misleading people as to whom theyre actually supporting."

to to the point where dancy seems to think this is just about the font and colour scheme of their campaign signs, forgetting (and negating almost entirely) who is whom and why we are even here to talk about it.

id say (not due to dancy, but due to the people that deliberately conflate all these things) thats some pretty heavy-grade propaganda at work.

if trump said "look, i dont even know what england was doing in world war ii, changing our jeep tires or something?" then eddie izzard (and indeed, american comedians as well) would have a field day with that. particularly when england was so heavily involved that even hmtq was changing jeep tires (and doing other repairs, all to keep britain from being taken over.)

and theyd be right. but even though i started as an open source advocate and switched to "free software" later-- its partly because i heard too many remarks like that, did the research, and finally realised "these self-serving bastards are rewriting history."

and people are still fooled after years of experience with the subject. its kind of disgusting.

the bruce perens letter after leaving osi is something every fan should read. i admire him for that. even when he picks the wrong team, he plays fair.

if you prefer open source goals to free software goals, thats your prerogative. goals are goals, right? and if you want to keep that separate from their methods of advocacy, alright do that then. i think most people who like "open source" do because they feel its more practical. i disagree, but theyre just as entitled to disagree with me as i am with them, thats fine.

puppy itself is closer to open source in that regard, and thats ONLY a problem from a free software standpoint. and i dont think puppy is as bad in that regard as redhat or opensuse, or even ubuntu.

but if you also appreciate open source advocates changing history and misleading you, thats just a lack of self-respect. i didnt appreciate it, and they havent stopped or admitted anything. they continue to go on these self-righteous rampages through the superficial and mundane, while calling the people who invented their very occupation "petty."

the hypocrisy is nothing short of astounding.

thats something most of their advocates dont seem to realise, and my real quarrel is with those who know better but still dont care.

then again, this all might not be so hard to follow if open source advocacy didnt lean so heavily on misinformation and butchered context, and double standards. free software isnt perfect, certanly not, but its got a much better track record in that regard.