[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [OS:N:] Re: yes it's gone on long enough

On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, ekunin wrote:

> A couple of brief points and I'll remember I promised to stop.


> I never claimed expertise in Linux. I assumed the different distros were
> different-otherwise what's the point? I'm trying to get Red Hat 7.0 to work
> and I cannot mount my CD Rom which means I can't load Star Office 5.2 for
> which I have the CD Rom. Every now and then I get a half hour and mess
> around with it, but I'm getting nowhere. What I want is a Linux that
> works for me, not you. If you tell me I must bring my level of expertise up
> to yours, then I'll tell  you why Linux isn't making greater inroads in the
> mainstream or in the schools.

Don't need linux expertise to understand the process. I recommend Red
Hat Linux 8.0. If you want to stay in the 7.* series... 7.3 is the best.
Jeremy Hogan can hook you up. And the redhat-install-list is a GREAT

> As for not following the e-mail convention-I thought the movers and shakers
> here don't like conventions. I use it sometime when it seems appropriate,
> but I don't like it. Just adds tons of text to the torrent. I assume people
> who are following a thread, follow it and don't need to be reminded of what
> went before. Those who aren't interested can use the kill filter or simply
> ignore those people they don't want to read.

Conventions and standards are VERY important in the computing world,
especially in the computised communication world (email, networking,
etc). Convention does not mean that a new ideas don't get proposed or
attempted. You try something new... if it works, convention may change,
if not... Convention does not mean LAW.

> As for harming this list, I plead innocent. I think it an absurd charge.

It's debatable as to whether your comments are way off base for this
mailing list. The list's purpose is the discussion open-source/free
software in the context of its use in schools and the government. That
is a LARGE topic.

Discussion of the process, competition, and cooperation is not overly
off base. But you can beat a particular point to death. And I think this
conversation is nearly beaten beyond recognition.

> Finally, Jeff's perception of human nature. On my web site I offer a theory
> which holds our negative perception of humanity drives us. No need to go
> into it here, but you might find it interesting. No need to read my book
> which is also on the site.

I'm an optimist! :) And I personally think optimism drives the
open-source community. We are optimistic that things can be better. That
there is a better way to do things. That the world can be a better
place. But open source is not the same as *humanity*... If I delve
further into that discussion, I *will* be off topic.

> Open source initially implied a different view of human nature. It was
> cooperative and supportive with the same ideals as the original hackers and
> the free software society. The Cathedral and the Bazaar described open
> source as an elitist meritocracy right out of Ayn Rand-at least that was how
> I read it.

The open source ideals are just as relevant now as they were then.

I think you read a different paper than I did. Meritocracy is
specifically anti-elitist.

Hmmm... I think I need to make a pledge not continue in this thread as
well. The horse is very dead and quite beat up.

 /odd Warner                                    <taw {redhat,pobox}.com>
          Bit Twiddler - Operation Cheetah Flip - Red Hat Inc.
---------------------gpg info in the message headers--------------------
"Sometimes you need to build a fire to keep warm, but you can't,
 and you freeze to death."
                  -Jack London, "To Build a Fire", book-a-minute version

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]