[PLUG] ./configure error

Jeme A Brelin jeme at brelin.net
Wed Oct 16 23:54:37 UTC 2002


Understand that this is a very different argument than whether or not
"devel" packages are properly named.  I'd like to keep them separate.

On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Russ Johnson wrote:
> 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.

How is your view "much larger" when it considers only immediate, selfish
desires and fails to consider long-term social implications?

> 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.

To this type of user that you describe, it doesn't matter whether the
software compiles locally or not.  If it's easy and it works, this
apathetic slob doesn't care, right?

> That more than anything else is why Windows has more "users".

I think you should probably take a look at your industry history again.  
There are lots of reasons Windows has more users than anything for which
source code is available and none of them have to do with being easier and
more opaque.

> You can get the software, run the install procedure, and it usually
> works.

That's no different than what I do.  I get the software and run the
install procedure.  And it usually works.

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

They don't and I don't believe anyone implied that they did.  I wrote that
they SHOULD and that failing to understand the inner workings of their
systems is ultimately destructive to themselves and their society.  But I
didn't write that can't use those systems in some capacity without knowing
how to use them to their full capacity.  That's absurd.  Hell, my father
can work a VCR for some purposes.

> >>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.

You disagree that I disagree?  Please, show me how I agree.

> 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.

Wow.

That kind of reasoning would lead one to statements like, "They have the
RIGHT to have sex with their children." or "They have the RIGHT to shit in
the park."  "Honor diversity, brother!"

Nobody has the right to be destructive and ignorance is socially
destructive.

> > 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.  

I don't reject the premise that one can choose to be ignorant.  I reject
the premise that one SHOULD choose to be ignorant.

> Those who want to learn, will.

...and those who don't, should be shown why they should.

> 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.

And I can help show them why it is NOT 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.

What does that even MEAN?  How do you fight for the right to be ignorant?  
Will you work against education initiatives claiming that they violate
people's freedom of choice of ignorance?

> > 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.

That's not true.  I know lots of people that would put bread on your table
without one bit of consideration for commerce.

Hell, I have friends and neighbors give me bread all the time.  And I
usually put it on my table.

> I deal with the world as it currently is, not as I'd like it to be.

Perhaps you should get up and try to improve your situation, then.

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

But they DON'T have that right because it impinges upon the rights of
others by creating a powerful exploitative class.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.  People who become ignorant and
complacent are not practicing their eternal vigilance and are, therefore,
sacrificing their freedom.  They are also threatening the freedom of every
other person by allowing a few people to use that ignorance and
complacence to gain power and that power can then be asserted over those
who DO practice their eternal vigilance.  And what do we do about threats
to our freedom?

> > 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.

"He" doesn't see it that way, sure.  But that's because of his precious
ignorance.  It is our responsibility as the informed to fight ignorance
and teach.

> > 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.

People DO normally have to defend their freedoms!  I don't think that I'd
be encouraging a person to do something they don't normally have to do by
encouraging them to practice eternal vigilance and work to be more
informed about the systems around them.

The only people that encourage ignorance are those who would like to
exploit it.  And those who exploit are looking to gain power and the
consolidation of power is a threat to freedom as a whole.

Fighting ignorance is defending freedom.

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





More information about the PLUG mailing list