* Yavor Doganov wrote, On 03/11/08 20:04: 
Sam Liddicott wrote:
This is the point we are discussing.
I argue that for many, there are dilemmas of the same abstract form
today.
    

I understand your point, and here we disagree: there is no reason for
a user or developer or $insert_role_here to make such dillemas today.
I think that it is these absolute statements that disturb me, which I will come to shortly, but your use of $insert_role_here should warn you that you are making broad claims about situations that you haven't enumerated, but more in a moment.
There are certain sacrifices you must do if you want to be a free
computer user, and that will be the case for some years to come.
No; and this is the subtle point: It is true that one can become a free computer user by making sacrifices, but by definition the sacrifices are easy or at least acceptable or they would not have been made.

So when a die-hard FS user claims to have made "sacrifices" it's really just another way of saying that they didn't find the sacrifices to be too hard; so there is probably no great virtue in it, in which case condemnation against those who find the sacrifice too hard is rather shallow.

It's a way of saying "I'm noble because the sacrifice was convenient to me. Anyone who finds it harder than I did or learned later than I did is (for now) ignoble."

The
magnitude of these compromises is dimminishing very quickly.

Which is in fact an acknowledgement of what I say; accepting that it has not yet fully diminished, and accepting that their is a gradient, which is why your view puzzles me.

  
You seem to suggest that they don't count BECAUSE those facing the
dilemma's are users, not developers of free software.
    

No.  I am a user myself, not a developer, so the most natural point of
view for me is the user's.

I think that here you are making a fundamentally wrong comparison: the
compromise back then was necessary
I think the word is "expedient", not "necessary".
for the development of the
foundation blocks of the GNU system (which is, more or less, what
distros install today as "minimal" or "standard" system).  When you're
missing one of those major blocks (such as libc, kernel, compiler,
shell, binutils, build system, core utilites, etc.), you're in
trouble.

Once you have those, you can build the rest without relying on
non-free software at all.
And do you say this as a non-developer to the other non-developers who at work have to use a B2B site with stupid flash menus?
Do you tell them that they can build the rest themselves?
Does it turn them off the idea of free software?

  
I do suggest that if gnu/linux and iceweasel is used with non-free
flash that there are more free software users than if ms windows and
explorer are used with non-free flash.
    

If you weigh on the quanitity, that is true.  But it's an illusion.
More free software users does not lead to our goal being reached
faster or earlier.

Maybe that's because people are rude to them and damn them for having found it harder than you did. If someone talks nicely and gives them what knowledge they are ready for, maybe they start to become enlightened and then converted.


  

    
Another aim of free software is the liberation; which cannot be done
merely by writing software, it requires evangelists;
    

  

  

This is not another aim, it is the only aim.

If people do not recognize non-free software as a social problem, we
have failed in our mission.

  

  

    
it means to win the understanding of the ignorant, it requires
teaching, and this is quite a different problem,
    

  

  

Here is the main point of the whole disagreement:
It appears that you think that if you manage to persuade a user or N
users to switch to free software (enitirely free or not, it does not
matter), that is a net win for the free software cause.
  



Nope, I think if I can make them switch, that then I can help them
taste freedom. Otherwise I may as well talk about dooze faille to them.



  
I say that this is nothing.  Really.  Free software will become more
and more common, for various reasons -- one of them being that it is
becoming technically better, and this process is fast.  We don't have
to do anything special about that; no efforts are required.
  



I'm not interested in the common-ness of free software; that can be
solved with cover disks and ftp mirrors. 

I'm interested in the process of freeing individuals.



  
Users who switch to free software for non-philosophical reasons (like
the company I work for, or my uncle) cannot possibly defend the cause
or keep up the community, because they're ready to trade away the
freedoms they have (because, as you say, they don't realize them and
don't value them).
  



No; they're ready to trade away the freedoms they don't value, they
will keep the freedoms they value.

But how will they know that there is a freedom until they taste it?
Putting it into their hands and on their computer will let them realise
it.



  
So what's the point in getting more users like these?  



I wasn't doing it for you, I was doing it for them.



  
The Open Source
campaign is doing already enough in this regard.  It is of course not
a bad thing at all -- but it's not our goal as activists, and more
importantly, does not help the mission.
  



You have a very narrow mission.



  

  

    
The first commonality is the value-judgement, or rationalization of
the compromise which occurs in both cases; strangely you both denied
and admitted that such a compromise occured in the early days of
developing the tools.
    

  

  

Refer to my explanation above wrt "must have foundation" and "the rest
of the system".  That is how the subsequent packages were developed
(e.g. GNUstep, GNOME, etc.) -- nobody had really faced this problem.
(I admit the presentation of my opinion was not clear, and maybe still
isn't.)
  



Clearly the commonality of abstract forms of the compromises does
exist, or you wouldn't have to make such a long excuse.

It's also the most highly qualified excuse I've ever seen. Of course
people had faced the problem before, just rewind 20 years and everyone
was facing it.

It was expedient because it helped the current aims. 





  

    
The second commonality is that the compromise in both cases is over
whether or not making the compromise will advance the aims of the
free software movement.
    

  

  

Yes.  While this is obvious in the GCC case, I still can't see even a
faint sign that it is in the example of Firefox + Flash.  

  



So you think this is not a commonality because you think that non-free
flash with firefox can never be used to promote FS aims?

I suggest that you have never observed it because you are rude to
people who haven't yet met your outward degree of sacrifice.



  

  

    
it also affects the introduction of others to free software.
    

  

  

Such introduction does not help much (or should I say "at all") if
these users do not embrace the values of the free software movement,
and are not ready to fight for them.  



Look at your use of the word "if"! You've answered the question. Such
introduction can help IF the users embrace the values of the free
software movement. We heard around 8 hours ago from someone on the list
who embraced the values by approaching from a free-as-in-cost
perspective. 



You seem very certain but are you SO certain that NO-ONE who requires
non-free flash on linux can begin to embrace free software values?



  
Suggesting them to treat such
non-free software as acceptable only undermines the goal: they will be
introduced to free software, and they'll be using it (mostly), but
they won't value what they have and what they may lose.  



Do you forget the element of time and increased exposure?



  
Such users
are at constant threat of being enslaved again, 



yes but the risk is reduced



  
perhaps even without
noticing as they cannot spot the danger.
  



but now they have increased exposure they may spot the danger,
especially if can mentor them.



  

    
Lets not dispute about the language, but from my frame this is an
admission that you don't appreciate someone elses requirements.
    

  

  

That's the namely the point: if a mere usage requirement leads to
neglecting ethical principles, then these principles are not so strong
or beleived in the value system of the person making the decision.
  



My point is that such use is leading to an introduction to ethical
principles.



  
Rather than weaking the principles, we'd better convince people that
they're worth as they are.
  



and if it's more than they can understand? What if it sounds like (as I
said before but you deleted)

"Be free and unable to do what you need to or be a captive and be able
to do what you need to"?



  
It is strictly personal, and my opinion is that helping the spread and
adoption of free software is a very small part of the job, as "thanks"
to the open source guys the values of the free software movement do
not spread at the same rate as the software.
  



good



  

  

    
My young children are an example. Right now captivity is more
attractive to them. I do not want to teach them to hate freedom. So
I make a compromise which I feel will promote free software in their
life. 
    

  

  

I do not refuse mine to visit any site they wish, I just explain them
why they can't view certain content, and why I cannot install the
software required to view it.  I don't think they understand yet.

  

  

    
Perhaps we can agree that users who don't yet understand freedom and
liberty are not enemies of the free software movement?
    

  

  

Of course, although without generalizing so much.  Some of our
outright enemies do not understand software freedom too.

  

  

    
Perhaps we can agree that those who help such people make
compromises that speed their migration to free software are also not
enemies of the free software movement.
    

  

  

Those seem to be the open source people, mostly.  I don't treat them
as enemies, I just think that by rapidly "helping" people this way and
speeding the migration, they are making our job harder.  It was
substantially easier a decade ago, when people already had to make
conscious choice and a convenience sacrifice to use GNU 



I suggest that most of those type of people have been converted



  
-- and it was
easier to persuade them, as they approached the issue with a clear
mind, juding very often solely based on the ethical values.

  

  

    
http://torvalds-family.blogspot.com/2008/11/black-and-white.html
    

  

  

Nothing new on the horizon; people insisting on software freedom are
treated as extravagant creatures since at least 1998, if not before.

  

  

    
but what is the FSF going to do about people who aren't there yet?
    

  

  

It does lots of things in that regard; in fact almost all of its
activities are diverted in that direction.
  





So that's it's current aims. Lets re-evaluate "expedient" in terms of
current aims...?



If giving a guy non-free flash on his ubuntu disk lets me teach him
about freedom, I'll do it. I can't guarantee he'll like freedom or
ubuntu but them it's his choice.



Sam