[PLUG] ./configure error

[Jeme A Brelin]

On Mon, 14 Oct 2002, Russ Johnson wrote:
> It's not editing the code, but it IS part of the developement process,
> and a vast step beyond what most computer users want to do with their
> computer.

It MIGHT be part of A development process, that doesn't make it
development.  See previous post on the subject.

> *MOST* users simply want a computer that runs the programs they want,
> without any build environment at all. They just want it to work.

According to you, those people don't really WANT a general purpose
computer at all.  They want an information appliance.

> For you and I, it's not a big deal to open the source tar ball,
> configure, test and install source.

You and me.

> For Joe sixpack, he doesn't even want to know the capability is there.
> He doesn't care. He wants his computer to run, and that's it.

Again, you say he wants an appliance, not a general purpose computer.

> For the vast majority of computer users, there's no need for source,
> compilers, headers or any of this other stuff you and I like so much.
> 
> And there's nothing wrong with that. If they don't want to learn how
> to compile a program from source, they don't have to.

See, I totally disagree with this on just about every level.

I reject your assertion that "the vast majority of computer users" have no
need or desire for the ability to compile software from source.  You don't
know the hearts of any majority anywhere and neither do I.

I absolutely reject the idea that there's nothing wrong with that supposed
state of affairs.  Failure of the public to DEMAND the capabilities
inherent in a general purpose computing device will lead a world in which
such devices are not common, inexpensive, and available.  That world is
one managed by information-owning oligopolies who control not only how you
see the world but which parts of it you see at all.  Willfull ignorance by
the majority results in power (through knowledge and skills) consolidating
in the hands of the few and the temptation to use that power to exploit.  
Not caring about and learning how the systems in your world operate (be
those your computer, your bicycle, your public agencies, or your body)
makes one more and more complacent, lazy and gullible over time.

> The binary distributions do that for them, and that's what they get
> paid to do.

There are plenty of people constructing binary distributions for no pay
whatsoever.  There are other valid means of human interaction than
commerce.

> That's also what makes America great. We each have our own choices to
> make.

Being free to make choices is great.  But that doesn't mean it's great to
make any and all choices.  Choosing to be lazy and complacent or exploit
the laziness and complacency of others is not great... not by a long shot.

> In your opinion. For you, it probably is dumb. For the guy down the
> street that just wants to pick up his mail, surf, and maybe chat, a
> full-on developement system that can compile anything is dumb. He
> doesn't need it, and doesn't want it.

He needs it to maintain his personal and social freedom.  He may not want
it, but by giving up his own freedoms, he risks the freedoms of others and
that is destructive, sociopathic behavior.

> Other folks have other needs, and what fits your style might be
> totally inappropriate for others.

This isn't a question of style.  It's not dots vs. stripes or even vi vs.
emacs.  Style is ultimately superficial and determines only HOW an
endeavor is carried out.  This is a question of whether or not an endeavor
(namely, the defense of our free lives) is carried out at all.

J.
-- 
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme at brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org