| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
GNU/Linux World Domination for the Wrong Reasons (Datamation)GNU/Linux World Domination for the Wrong Reasons (Datamation)Posted Mar 11, 2008 18:07 UTC (Tue) by mmarsh (subscriber, #17029)Parent article: GNU/Linux World Domination for the Wrong Reasons (Datamation)
What Bruce Byfield writes is true more of GNU than of Linux, isn't it? My understanding was that Linus has been and continues to be less of an idealogue and more of a pragmatist.
(Log in to post comments)
GNU/Linux World Domination for the Wrong Reasons (Datamation) Posted Mar 11, 2008 18:37 UTC (Tue) by felixrabe (guest, #50514) [Link] For me it's all the same. I get way less frustrated with computers in real life if I know that I could (at least theoretically, given some time) change their stupid behavior. The freedoms that Stallman fights for are very pragmatical to me for this very reason.
GNU/Linux World Domination for the Wrong Reasons (Datamation) Posted Mar 11, 2008 19:04 UTC (Tue) by martinfick (subscriber, #4455) [Link] Yes, "pragmatism" is such a derogatory condescending term. Its use always implies that the rest of the world everyone (who was not covered by the label) is unrealistic. The word inherently involves a value judgment but pretends to be neutral; it can never be used without bashing the other side and really should just be avoided since it conveys nothing of real value (except for the bashing.) The above statement is not meant to imply any form of Linus vs. Stallman comparison. Both men have great valuable opinions (both are idealists!) from which I have learned a lot, neither which I agree with either 100% (should anyone?) Both have accomplished great things for the free software users.
GNU/Linux World Domination for the Wrong Reasons (Datamation) Posted Mar 11, 2008 19:18 UTC (Tue) by mmarsh (subscriber, #17029) [Link] That's certainly not the way I use "pragmatism." An ideological "purity" has its value, and certainly provides a (generally) long-term goal. Many pragmatists are idealistic, and many idealists are pragmatic. It's more a question of which motivates you more on a day-to-day basis.
Self-labeled pragmatists aren't really pragmatic Posted Mar 11, 2008 19:21 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] Someone who labels himself as a "pragmatist" is saying that he rejects certain things as "ideals", and their proponents as "idealists". But eventually the so-called pragmatist gets hit with the fact that his graphics card isn't going to work any more, he can't do business with the software he's paid for because its provider is gone and there's no source, etc.So, a "pragmatist" is really just a person who can't see a far enough horizon to properly protect himself and his business. Bruce
Self-labeled pragmatists aren't really pragmatic Posted Mar 11, 2008 19:29 UTC (Tue) by mmarsh (subscriber, #17029) [Link] I think you're painting with too broad a brush. While it's true that many people with an "I just want it to work today, dammit!" attitude identify themselves as pragmatists, others who consider themselves pragmatists choose to fight the battles today that make (to them) the most sense to fight today. The GNU project didn't replace an entire OS all at once, it replaced bits and pieces as possible. That's a pragmatic approach, and a good example of one that's ideologically driven.
Self-labeled pragmatists aren't really pragmatic Posted Mar 12, 2008 2:10 UTC (Wed) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] But the GNU folks you are describing would not call themselves pragmatists.
Self-labeled pragmatists aren't really pragmatic Posted Mar 12, 2008 2:16 UTC (Wed) by mmarsh (subscriber, #17029) [Link] Granted, but my point is there's a spectrum. People who describe themselves as idealists can be pragmatic, and people who describe themselves as pragmatists can be idealistic. Saying that self-described pragmatists are, to a person, interested in expedience at the expense of principle or short-term benefit at the expense of long-term good is unfair and untrue.
Self-labeled pragmatists aren't really pragmatic Posted Mar 12, 2008 6:41 UTC (Wed) by Duncan (guest, #6647) [Link] Actually, in this regard, I believe (and no, I'm not pretending to speak for him, I'd definitely welcome his correction if I'm incorrect in this belief) Stallman would call himself just that, pragmatic. From that material I've read, he has in fact actually pointed out from time to time that at one point he /did/ in fact use a non-free OS, but that he now sees no need to do so, and therefore does not do so, as all the necessary parts are there to run a free one, even if it entails a bit of taking the longer view over immediate comfort or gain, in some areas. That's probably why the OS libraries exception is there, after all. It reflects a pragmatic viewpoint in that it was and in some cases remains difficult to implement free(dom) software without such dependencies. Similarly with the pragmatism (tho toward an ultimate goal, no argument) evidenced in the LGPL, and also the GCC license exceptions. He just makes it a point to never lose sight of the ultimate goal, software freedom everywhere, and to promote that as effectively as he believes he possibly can at every turn, regardless of whether that means "unbending idealism" or "pragmatism" in an individual case. I certainly respect him for that, tho I too, don't agree with him in all cases (like the GNU/Linux thing). It's worth noting, however, that I agree with him enough to have chosen as my sig in many contexts a quote of his (as noted elsewhere in the replies), to the effect that every non-free program has a master, and if you use the program, you are letting him be /your/ master as well. Duncan
GNU/Linux World Domination for the Wrong Reasons (Datamation) Posted Mar 11, 2008 19:37 UTC (Tue) by b3timmons (guest, #40286) [Link] >What Bruce Byfield writes is true more of GNU than of Linux, isn't it? What the lwn introduces as "Linux" is the "GNU/Linux" that Byfield discusses. AFAICT, Byfield does not mention the Linux kernel. >My understanding was that Linus has been and continues to be less of an idealogue and more of a pragmatist. I suppose, but I do not see the connection to the article.
GNU/Linux World Domination for the Wrong Reasons (Datamation) Posted Mar 12, 2008 6:27 UTC (Wed) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] Linus just does the kernel, which is only a small (though vital) part of a distribution. The people who put together Debian or Fedora are highly motivated by freedom issues.And even Linus has no interest in helping you get your proprietary nVidia or ATI driver to work.
|
|
||||||||||||