I think it was the Uplift series by David Brin that has an idea where the old galactic races all speak a perfect language that has no ambiguity, and because of that they have no poetry or jokes. What a great world to strive for. No I'll take the mess please FFS.
People joke about engineer types treating humans the same as machines, but really I see no excuse for even engineer types to get this wrong. It's a failure to recognize what the function or goal actually is, and then optimizing for the wrong thing.
> I think it was the Uplift series by David Brin that has an idea where the old galactic races all speak a perfect language that has no ambiguity, and because of that they have no poetry or jokes.
Human laguage is rich and expressive, matching human thought. The diversity is part of the expressiveness. Saying something in some poetic, or merely different way, is not just an inefficient or ambiguous/confusing way of saying the same thing, it's saying something else, and that something else cannot be expressed any other way.
A crayons-only, thumbs-only, Apple one-button-only, 1000 word vocabulary world is not efficient, it's poor.
Like I said, I'm not denying the value of expressiveness at all, nor am I suggesting that anyone who values it should ever be denied the ability to express themselves as they please.
I just feel that when people talk about linguistic diversity or having a distinctive "voice," they sometimes overlook the fact that many people simply don't have a strong attachment to those things. A lot of people are primarily concerned with getting their ideas across clearly, and many already struggle with that before they even have the capacity to worry about how expressive or distinctive their language is.
I don't think that makes their use of language somehow poorer or less human. It just means they have different priorities for what they need language to accomplish.
There's no reason to hope there is a way to tell a particular source of ads to turn itself off when you can just use a non-gimped ad block on a non-gimped platform and block all ads without caring if any of them are cooperative or adversarial.
That world is terrible. Thank deity no one has the power to actually inflict and enforce their particular bankrupt oppressive idea of the one true world on everyone else.
Variety and change is basically the definition of life itself. Uniformity and stasis are pretty good definitions of death.
Kooky offshoots and dead-ends are not waste, they are the very definition of life.
Imagine a world without life? Sure, absoulutely do imagine that, so that you can understand how and why you would never want that and should never suggest it, and know exactly how to respond to anyone who comes along and tries to float this genius idea of efficiency.
You do not need root to run that shell function, nor to get it loaded into a shell's environment.
They didn't say anything about overwriting the sudo binary, and that is not required, which I think was their whole point was to show exactly how that is not required.
You didn't switch away from windows to get superior software?
Also, the statement was valid because it will be true for most. It doesn't matter that you read it and it wasn't true for you, as long as it's true by the numbers, it's true, because it's one-to-many communication not one to one.
My reasons to switch to Linux from Windows were very little about "security" and plenty more about freedom. Sure, it was very nice avoiding running an antivirus, but that was just the cherry on top.
I wanted the freedom to change and "rice" my desktop however I wanted, and the Compiz cube looked awesome. I found Windows condescending and restricting in that regard. Yes, my first reason was the aesthetics, kick me out of the nerds club. (That was also the reason I switched to Mac for 10 years).
My second reason was that I suspected I could learn so much more about computers using Linux full time. And I did.
I was also younger and used to associate Windows with soul-sucking corporate jobs and Linux with new ideas and experimentation. It was us-vs-them. Open Source vs Micro$oft and all that vibe.
While I don't want to discuss the quality of any distro vs Windows, there is a big reason most of us use free software: because it is free.
Whether for you it is because of free as in freedom or free as in beer specifically, quality may not have much to do with it.
In EU at least you can almost get free as in beer Windows, you can buy a fully legal 2nd hand (resold) Windows license for about $10, the price of a fancy beer.
I'm sure "superior software" is true for most, but that's a much wider goalpost than the people specifically worried about security/vulnerabilities. One of the biggest factors pushing people to Linux lately is the increasing number of ads and annoyances being crammed in to Windows. Security has been moderate for a long time.
After digging through a recently passed relative’s hard drive (the computer barely functioned so I pulled it) and having to search through years of garbage that where never deleted to find the photos, Word documents, and WordPerfect documents my aunt ‘knew’ where stored there somewhere, this is not an insignificant gift to leave my family with.
They do not give all of the code. If you have an object, and don't have everything needed to reproduce the object, then you have not been given the source to the object.
And with BSD licenced code this is their right.
And it's my and anyone else's right to observe all of this and criticize it.
Likewise, it is my right to criticise you for exercising your right to criticise them. Nobody said you aren't allowed to, but just as anyone is allowed to whine about not being given enough free stuff, I'm allowed to call out that they're acting like an entitled child in public. Just because you can legally do something doesn't mean that it is socially acceptable to do so.
No one is whining about not being given enough free stuff, and you in fact have no right to criticize people for something they aren't doing.
For my part, I'm simply opting for "leave it" out of "take it or leave it". I merely say WHY I'm leaving it, but choosing to use something else rather than reward trunas for doing something I don't like is not whining or demanding or childish.
Here is childish: You can go fuck yourself for attempting to characterize it that way.
Now you have something to criticize dickface.
Wow, that was easy, it's almost like calling people names is effortless and we can all do that, and not a very valid argument.
> They chose to base their enterprise on the work of others, only to pull the ladder up behind them.
This is literally why BSD exists in the first place. To allow companies compete freedom with the code, including freedom to not release changes.
I hate to break it to you: basically every commercial storage vendor on the planet bases their appliances on either BSD or Linux and not a single one is sharing their proprietary code with you. There’s nothing shameful about it, they built a company to make money.
> This is literally why BSD exists in the first place. To allow companies compete freedom with the code, including freedom to not release changes.
I would phrase it slightly differently. BSD licensing exists to allow everyone complete freedom with the code, not just businesses. It is a gift to the commons without restriction on who may use it or for what, which is why I love BSD (and other permissive licenses).
People joke about engineer types treating humans the same as machines, but really I see no excuse for even engineer types to get this wrong. It's a failure to recognize what the function or goal actually is, and then optimizing for the wrong thing.
reply