Linux and Philosophy

Stephen Shaw sshaw at decriptor.com
Sat Jul 16 23:18:32 MDT 2005


I worded this really poorly to start with.  My intention wasn't to pick
on MSFT directly.  I'm looking to pick on proprietary software in
general/ prove that open source is a good thing and that having it is
beneficial to all.  
I think what I was trying/should have said and the reason for pointing
at MSFT was that when you go to the store you can't just buy a computer
without windows or request some other os ( talking about circuit city,
rc willey).  For example, your parents had a windows machine, you go to
school whether it is 1st grade til the end of college you have a windows
machine, and then you go into the work place and use a windows machine.
I realize that this isn't true in every place.  I mean I've had macs and
commodores.  To further that point, in my programming classes everything
had to work in MSFT or you fail.  That is somewhat the freedom I'm
aiming at.  It has been resent that in order to be an accredited CS
program you have to teach two operating systems.  Just to clarify, I
know if you go to a local computer store you can usually ask to not have
it.  So as a kid growing up you are surrounded with MSFT this and that.
OS, office.  That is where I was headed as far as that goes.
This is only a draft and so are my thoughts.  I greatly appreciate the
comments, agreeing or disagreeing because it helps me focus a bit.


Stephen

I getting tired, so it quite possible I'm not expressing myself very
well.  You can tell me where I'm wrong and I'll take it.  It'll only
suck if I'm not corrected.

Thanks again 


On Sat, 2005-07-16 at 23:39 -0500, Michael Halcrow wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 16, 2005 at 08:04:01PM -0600, Stephen Shaw wrote:
> > I'm writing a paper for my ethics and values class at UVSC and my
> > topic is Linux.  The approach that I'm taking is Open Source:
> > Restoring Freedom.
> 
> And you would give Stallman an aneurysm.
> 
> > The idea is that Microsoft has stolen our freedom to choose and that
> > with all the things that surround Linux and the Open Source
> > community we regain that freedom of choose. ie apps, OS, etc.  I was
> > wondering what others thought about this.
> 
> That's a stretch. There have always been viable proprietary
> alternatives (Mac, OS/2, WordPerfect, Netscape, etc.). The Free
> Software phenomenon has created another set of alternatives that
> require users to agree to less anti-social terms in order to install
> and use software. I would echo the sentiments of others on this
> thread, that you should not single out any one company, but rather
> focus on malevolent proprietary licensing terms vs. benevolent Free
> Software licensing terms -- computer users can now choose whether or
> not they are going to be good members of the community. I do not think
> that the "increased choice through quantity of similar software"
> argument really holds a lot of water.
> 
> Mike
> .___________________________________________________________________.
> The wonderful thing about a dancing bear is not how well he dances,  
> but that he dances at all. 
> .===================================.
> | This has been a P.L.U.G. mailing. |
> |      Don't Fear the Penguin.      |
> |  IRC: #utah at irc.freenode.net   |
> `==================================='




More information about the PLUG mailing list