Comments on: On Annoyance and Free Software http://www.the-source.com/2010/06/on-annoyance-and-free-software/ Free and Open Source Software News and Opinion Tue, 22 Nov 2011 12:44:40 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2 By: Jason http://www.the-source.com/2010/06/on-annoyance-and-free-software/comment-page-1/#comment-963 Jason Fri, 25 Jun 2010 00:12:28 +0000 http://www.the-source.com/?p=934#comment-963 nautical, Thank you for that comment! Well said indeed! nautical,

Thank you for that comment! Well said indeed!

]]> By: nautical http://www.the-source.com/2010/06/on-annoyance-and-free-software/comment-page-1/#comment-962 nautical Fri, 25 Jun 2010 00:06:48 +0000 http://www.the-source.com/?p=934#comment-962 >I wonder what motivates someone to take a position they are not able to rationally defend, one which they must resort to (and repeat) logical fallacies of all flavors? The thing about anti-social behaviour is that it stops being regarded as such when enough people bring it into practice. The basic problem with non-free software is that in its core it encourages anti-social behaviour. If someone would explain to you you are behaving anti-socially it is a natural reaction to convince yourself your behaviour is not anti-social, because a lot of people are doing it, so it can't be wrong. And as such there must be something wrong with the accusing party. So you band together, set up a straw-figure, and repeat the reasons why you can't be wrong. The great problem here is not people *using* proprietary software, (which we almost all do at times, you, me, and yes, even RMS), but promoting the use of proprietary software as an acceptable practice, *just to make themselves feel better about their own behaviour*. No-one can be 100% socially minded all of the time, but that doesn't mean that we should accept it if someone should advocate such flaws as acceptable or even eligible by calling it "pragmatic" and pitting it against the "purist" approach. It would be wrong to ostracize someone for simply using non-free software. But it would not be wrong to criticize a person for championing non-free software (for what are basically anti-social and selfish purposes again, i.e. to feel better about oneself at the expense of others.) >I wonder what motivates someone to take a position they are not able to rationally defend, one which they must resort to (and repeat) logical fallacies of all flavors?

The thing about anti-social behaviour is that it stops being regarded as such when enough people bring it into practice.
The basic problem with non-free software is that in its core it encourages anti-social behaviour.

If someone would explain to you you are behaving anti-socially
it is a natural reaction to convince yourself your behaviour is not anti-social, because a lot of people are doing it, so it can’t be wrong. And as such there must be something wrong with the accusing party. So you band together, set up a straw-figure, and repeat the reasons why you can’t be wrong.

The great problem here is not people *using* proprietary software, (which we almost all do at times, you, me, and yes, even RMS), but promoting the use of proprietary software as an acceptable practice, *just to make themselves feel better about their own behaviour*.
No-one can be 100% socially minded all of the time, but that doesn’t mean that we should accept it if someone should advocate such flaws as acceptable or even eligible by calling it “pragmatic” and pitting it against the “purist” approach.

It would be wrong to ostracize someone for simply using non-free software. But it would not be wrong to criticize a person for championing non-free software (for what are basically anti-social and selfish purposes again, i.e. to feel better about oneself at the expense of others.)

]]>