ESR Advocates Proprietary Software

mvdwege writes "Apparently, Eric Raymond has decided that proprietary software is now a good thing, according to The Register. I must say it is rather revealing how easily he is willing to compromise on this particular freedom. Is his earlier vocal proclamation of the importance of freedom (still visible on his homepage) mere posturing? And if so, how about his vocal support of other freedoms?"

Slashdot's wonderful humor

[vdboor]

Slashdot seams to have picked up a wonderful kind of humor. When I opened the article it showed the "Nothing to see here, please move along"-404 page :-) Guess they're right after all. I'm out of here.

Everybody Loves Eric Raymond!

[TheRaven64]

Sorry, had to be said [geekz.co.uk].

Re:Um....

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you clearly don't understand how this works. Freedom is defined by these left-wing hippie nutbars as using a completely unencumbered OS and software. The fact they have to use non-free, closed-source hardware to run this free software is irrelevant.

If you CHOOSE to run a proprietary, closed-source OS or application then there's something wrong with you and you must be ostracised.

Re:Uhhh, duh.

[kclittle]

Rick, you are being logical, rational and open-minded. Your privileges here at Slashdot is hereby revoked.

Acronyms vs Initials

[emag]

Why would the esser, the esurb, the naahcpuh, and ozdin not be acronyms?

XP 64 vs XP 32

[metamatic]

The only reason anyone uses XP 64 right now is if they have an app that requires it. Otherwise, they're just asking for misery.

And this is different from regular Windows XP how, exactly?

Re:That's not quite what he said.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd never heard of an initialism until earlier this year when someone attacked me the same way.

initialism [reference.com].

Once initialisms have been commonly taught in high schools for more then 40 years, then you can start picking at people about not knowing the difference.

That sounds like an excuse. "I'm sorry officer, i didn't know speeding was illegal". Not a good excuse...

I suspect both you and your bookworm wife are fucking idiots.

Re:Old fart programmers ...

[kclittle]

"privileges are" -- yes, I know, saw it .05 usec after I hit 'Submit'. It's hard to be grammer-perfect when your wife is yelling, "We have to go NOW or we'll be late!" at you from two feet away...grrrrr

Re:Slashdot's wonderful humor

[Overly Critical Guy]

Uh oh - you're a I'm in a hole, I'd better keep digging kinda guy huh?

Maybe I should wait for you to get back to me when you learn to write proper English so I can understand you.

It's 'common knowledge' that goldfish have three second memories, but that's incorrect too.

Your strawman argument notwithstanding, it's still completely common knowledge that Stallman's goal is to get rid of proprietary software and have everyone using Open Source, because he considers proprietary software to be evil.

I'm actually ignoring you because you're incorrect. I honestly can't believe that you're so stupid that you can't see the difference between someone saying "I don't like cabbage" and "I think the government should ban cabbage".

I never said Stallman wanted the government to "ban" proprietary software.

Beyond stupid - you've decimated my position by stating something is common knowledge?

Absolutely. I'm glad you're finally catching up.

This thread is going to form the basis of my new sig! This thread is a spectacular example of someone who can't back up what they say, but are too stubborn (stupid?) to admit they're wrong.

I've backed up Stallman's position countless times and could continue to do so indefinitely. I've given you an interview and could give you more. Everybody knows Stallman doesn't believe in proprietary software and wants to do away with it. You're obviously in denial. I'd love to be in your sig. It will serve as a constant reminder to you that I completely owned your ass in this debate long ago, to the point that you're now actually arguing that you never had a position in the first place. Please.

Next.