RE: why linux?

<Moved from Tech List (since this is in reply to a few of the Non-Technical
parts of James' fine "article"  ).>


| -----Original Message-----
| [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of James Rich


| Whew!  2 1/2 hours on one email message!  That's got to be a new record.

Well... THAT'S 2 1/2 hours of your life that you can't get back...
lol...:-D  A record...?!?  I spent somewhere between 2 and 2 1/2 hours on my
e, and that wuz one-a my SHORTER ones... <snicker...;->

And just want to add that I appreciate the thoughtful response, James, and
found it VERY interesting in several respects.  (Dunno how many others found
similar, but (to me) the quantity of people who enjoyed your post is of
little import...  You seemed to ENJOY writing the post, as far as I can
tell, and that (I hope) is sufficient justification for the time spent.)

Unfortunately, I have commitments to work which prevent me from replying in
any decent matter until later (if it happens, which is doubtful due to
time).  But to (actually somewhat superficially, due to brevity in spite of
length) address a couple of the non-technical aspects of your reply, James:


| If Richard Stallman were to say, "I cease to believe that knowledge should
| be freely accessible" then I would stop listening to what he has to say,
| and admittedly lose faith in his writings.  I hesitate to say "lose faith"
| because of the religious overtones;  I mean it in only the most secular
| way.  All of the people you mention are just people and not deserving of
| any kind of worship.

I can't agree more that these people are people that are not deserving of
worship.  The discussion of whether there are ANY people who are worthy of
worship would require a lengthy discussion of the terms "person", "worthy",
and "worship", and is not one I'm gonna participate in (at the very least on
a forum of this kind, if any).

| They aren't cult leaders.

Perhaps I use the term "cult" improperly.  These people are leaders of very
LARGE and POWERFUL groups (the FSF, OSI, Linux, and the group that made up
the "Creative" Commons license, respectively)...  And the core of these
different groups very intimately surround the individual who is heading the
group.  And the core principles of each of these groups shares a common
facet, from what I've observed, which is that the core principles are
self-contradictory and illogical.

When I say "illogical" I do NOT mean to imply that they are insane or not
well-reasoned or ANYTHING along those lines, but that they are founded in
logic that works backwards from conclusion to fact.. and are, therefore in
hindsight, not very pragmatic.  And that's why the results these groups have
achieved (which are MANY and undeniable (although I tend to come across like
I don't appreciate the results when I do)) run contrary to the goals that
are espoused.

So the results end up contributing to the problem, as much or more than
solving the problems they were intended to resolve.  The common problems all
these groups intended to solve was (to simplify) to increase software
quality and innovation.  (Not that they haven't served to produce BIG, yet
incremental, gains.)  There was an, I believe INTENDED, side-effect which
was that each of these people became famous and developed HUGE followings.
That's what I intended to mean when I referred to "cult" leaders.

<snip, see below>
| Science has been building on this
| idea for a long time.  That it should be applied so widely is what makes
| it so exciting.  I can learn.  You can learn.  We can improve ourselves.

On this, there is little debate (afaik).

| But they do champion
| ideas - ideas which are powerful and compelling.  The idea is that
| knowledge should be freely accessible.

| So reason number two for "why linux?" is knowledge should be freely
| accessible.  That is my experience - and what a great experience it has
| been!

I do not equate "knowledge" with "education" although they correllate to a
large degree (and will take a pass on the whole IQ vs. EQ debate).  (I also
do NOT see much correlation between "knowlege" and "wisdom", which is a
WHOLE 'nuther topic.)

Education is not free.

The leaders of the "developed" countries met with the leaders of the
"undeveloped" countries, year ago last Spring, and announced a goal of
making K - 12 education "free" world-wide by 2015.  (The leader of the
summit announced that this goal was not feasible, but they wanted to at
least set A goal.)  Seen no discussion of higher education becoming "free".

I've heard from a number of respected sources that RMS is a highly
principled individual.  Nonetheless, it is no small irony but a great
hypocracy that he is a (very-well-paid, I'm sure) Professor.  Yet he
declares that professional programmers should NEVER be paid for the work
they do.

Likewise ESR and Linus Torvalds who, as "luck" would have it, are no doubt
exceedingly wealthy.  Lawrence Lessig is a LAWYER, not a professional
programmer.  I mistrust his motivations the least of the four, however, for
some reason.


So the question isn't a-tall whether knowledge SHOULD be freely accessible
or not, because it ain't (even in the West in spite of the Net, but
especially when looked at globally).

And the discussion of whether it SHOULD be free (or freely accessible or
whatever) which is economically IMPOSSIBLE..

..actually moves the discussion AWAY from how it COULD be
more-cheaply-accessible through TRUE software quality and innovation, and
NOT by depriving coders of a way to make a living (except by selling snake
oil, referring to "Four Ways to Win" from "Jobs for Hackers" on OSI site.
And "The open-source culture's exemplars of commercial success have, so far,
been".. ....NONEXISTANT, despite the bombastic claims to the contrary.  The
TRUE successes have been in smaller niches, not Red Hat or the pathetic
performance of VA Linux (LNUX) which are so highly TOUTED.)


(Wisdom, on the other hand, IS free for the taking.. yet even THAT'S not all
THAT easy to come by for most-a us, anyhoo...;-)