----- "Manoj Srivastava" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 23 2008, martin f krafft wrote: > > > It's all a matter of defining what your priorities are, which brings > > us back to the Social Contract, which says that these include: > > > > - 100% freeness > > - cater best to the interests of our users > > Frankly, this mindset infuriates me. It frames the discussion > incorrectly, it implies that freeness and user interest are at > odds. Logically, it aargues that Windows is the best for users, since > it caters to newbies, and is not free- and since the implication is > that freedom can be taken too far, allowing the users freedom to see > movies legally, to use MS office and photoshop legally might triump the > new fangled linux thingy.
Its a lot like exercise. Its not convenient and its not easy but in the long run its a good idea. I think the loud voices you are talking about are the same kind of loud, short-term gain voices that have caused so much trouble for the American economy. The point is that what is "best for the user" and what is "convenient or easy for the user" may not be the same thing. It is convenient and easy to eat fast food every day but it will make you fat and unhealthy. So it is the same way with your computer. It is easy and convenient to give up freedom and control so you can watch a movie and play a cool 3D game, but you end up with your data trapped in an infrastructure controlled by the interests of others. Now, breaking the law to keep control... I don't know how we advocate that. That's a harder question. Without law the whole notion of copyright is farcical and the DFSG becomes largely meaningless unless we are looking to some kind of "higher law". Not clear how that works. -- Debian, choice of a GNU generation. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
