Toolkit

Story: My response to Richard Stallman

• 
• 

To the previous poster..............................................

Before I start, could you make up some nonsense handle and let ZDNet display it? At least I would be able to say "To so and so." As things stand, everyone who has posted is is anonymous, and it COULD be all the same person, but it might not be.

Regarding the statement I called "doublespeak:"

> In fact, he wrote that the entire
> goal of the Free Software Movement
> is to ensure that the needs of users
> are elevated to equivalent to the rights
> of developers in the software social
> contract.

Sounds uplifting, doesn't it, and like developers are championing the needs of the common man. However, that is EXACTLY its intent. It doesn't make the claim any more useful, however, or any more valid.

Imagine you have a bunch of people living on the coast who believe they have a right to government-provided boats. It's harder to convince everyone that they NEED boats, particularly if they live in Des Moines, Iowa, where there isn't much need for such a thing. A good way to phrase a special-interest demand, therefore, is to do the the Free Software Movement
> is to ensure that the needs of users
> are elevated to equivalent to the rights
> of developers in the software social
> contract.:
following:

"the entire goal of the Free Boat movement is to ensure the needs of average citizens are elevated in the social contract to the equivalent of the rights of people who live on the coast"

It's a way of making a special-interest desire seem more generally applicable, and the advocates like they are championing the god-given rights of all.

That's a common way for open source advocates to speak, and ESPECIALLY Mr. Stallman. Hey, it's effective...but it's useful to cut through the doublespeak to consider whether what he is saying is REALLY something that all the world needs or wants.

> You seem to insist that we should
> choose proprietary software whether
> or not it's better for freedom.

You're starting from the presumption that proprietary software is actually limiting of your freedom. I argued in your article that it isn't, and that your PERCEPTION that it limits your freedom is YOURS, not something inherent in the nature of proprietary software.

> Then, when people point out, repeatedly,
> that your opinion is full of holes, well,
> you come out with a new article and
> make all the same absurd claims over
> there, abandoning the tough questions
> here.

So my opinions are OBJECTIVELY full of holes? Obviously, I didn't agree, or I wouldn't continue to use the line of reasoning I use in my articles. You speak as if reality is some platonic form that you and Richard Stallman have some special channel into. Well, it's not. I DON'T abandon the tought questions, and if I might add, how many other commentators bother to dive into the talkbacks and battle it out? I'm willing to face my critics. I'm not willing to be ABUSED by them, but that's a different issue. Critics who make arguments (as you, for the most part, are doing) I am perfectly willing to confront. Just don't presume that I must necessarily be convinced of your arguments.

• 
• 

• 
• 
• 

Full Talkback thread