[PLUG] ./configure error

[Russ Johnson]

Jeme A Brelin wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Oct 2002, Russ Johnson wrote:

>>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.

In your opinion. I have a much larger view. He wants his computer to 
run, and he wants to be able to install (I said install, not compile) 
software in an easy manner, and have it work.

That more than anything else is why Windows has more "users". You can 
get the software, run the install procedure, and it usually works.

At the same time, I abhor users that "click [Next] as fast as possible" 
to get things installed. I *do* feel that users have to understand some 
of what they are doing.

I just don't think they need to know how to compile to use the 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.

And I disagree with that. They have the RIGHT to be ignorant, if they 
choose to be. You know, honor diversity and all that. You can't just 
honor diversity as long as it matches your diversity.

> 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.

Then you reject the very premise that one can CHOOSE to be ignorant. 
Those who want to learn, will.

> 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.

And that is their choice! It's called freedom of choice. They can do 
that if they so believe it's the right course of action.

You may not agree, and you can do what you want to try to change their 
minds, but I'll still fight for their right to be ignorant if they want 
to be.

>>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.

Maybe. Won't put bread on my table. I deal with the world as it 
currently is, not as I'd like it to be.

>>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.

I agree. But those that choose to be lazy (as you call them) have that 
right.

>>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.

In your opinion. He may not see it that way, and just wants his email.

>>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.

But don't you see, if you *FORCE* someone to do something that they 
don't normally have to, then you are becoming the very beast you decry.


-- 
--
Russ Johnson
Dimension 7/Stargate Online
http://www.dimstar.net

Random thought #11 (Collect all 17)
"Every year, back comes Spring, with nasty little birds yapping their 
fool heads off and the ground all mucked up with plants." - Dorothy Parker