Now that IS a very odd thing for me to say. "Don't blame the software" anyone who knows me knows dam good and well I "ALWAYS" blame the software, even when there is smoke coming out he back of the computer I some how find a way to blame it on bad code.
But I restrict this to my own equipment. When it's someone else's equipment I blame the people in charge of the equipment. Also on my equipment 9 times out of 10 I wrote the software so it's still my fault.

I'm talking about the jerk who always pops his head up and yells "Don't use XXX use ZZZ instead" somehow clamming XXX is useless and ZZZ solves all problems magicly. It never ever works that way.

Today it's on Second Life. They had some nasty database issues. Lately they have been having all kinds of nasty database issues. So somebody says "Get rid of the Toy MySQL database" and of course I come to Slashdot to rant (I think I'd get in trubble if I respond on SL).

Basicly every software has it's pluses and minuses. Some more than others.
I see a lot of psudo techies pop up when ever there is a problem and blame something no matter how unrelated.

If you Windows people think this is exclusive to Linux geeks think again. I see more "Use Windows", "Use Microsoft" and other such bullshit than I ever see from the Linux side.
Oh sure BSD people pop up every now and then and say "you might consider migrating your server stack to BSD" and only when doing so might actually solve the problem and not create a whole new set of problems.
However I see a lot of "Use Windows". There is a power outage and the servers all die "Use Windows" and that is going to solve the problem of having NO POWER?

Yes Linux people do say "You should use Linux" often. They do it at the right time to make such suggestions even when the suggestion itself is stupid. It isn't recomended as a solution to a compleatly unrelated problem.
My TV show was cancled, It wouldn't have been had I switched to Windows.

It's like people think if they bitch about open source software every time there is a problem people will start thinking open source software is worse than commertal counterparts.
and on that now if Second Life ever did take that suggestion of not using MySQL that would be the end of Second Life.

Look at my preveous jorurnals you can see I pritty much take a stand that the virus software is the worst solution to a problem that shouldn't even exist.

A short summery.
The problem is due to outdated operating system design.
Virus software can (and has in the past) shut down antivirus protection.
Anti-virus software can only trap the virus AFTER it has had a chance to wreck havoc. Cause irreversable damage up to and including render anti-virus software USELESS.

So what's my bitch now?
How about bogus anti-virus software. It's happend before. A trojen made by some individiual to trick people into running it to catch viruses.
I thought we were past the days when trojens could trick us so I didn't mention it.
Preticularly for virus scans. BUY THE DAM SOFTWARE GODDAMMIT. The free scans do NOTHING.

It gets better. My mother got an update from the manufacter of her computer.
It included anti-spyware software.
A freeware version.
They send it ever freaking time we didn't install the software.
We have anti-virus software and anti-spyware software we didn't need this.
Well ok they insist so it's installed. It's a DEMO not the full version and detects all kinds of viruses.
Only umm nothing else detects those viruses. NOTHING ELSE AT ALL.
So I uninstall and look up the name of the software. Can't find it. But I can find the software takes it's name from a type of scam where fake anti-virus software instals spyware. ...

Thank you anti-virus industry.
Windows - Many viruses including a few manfuactuer supplied virus scanners.
Linux - A few viruses a few worms. None of them work.
MacOsX - One worm and it never worked.

I've made my case that Linux is virus resistant. I don't think presuing the subject any ferther in this direction has any meaning.

I wanted to present a diffrent thought on the matter.
Let us say there was a Linux virus and as predicted it became a pleage.
What next?

Antivirus software? Firewalls?

Every example of how Linux could get a virus includes one key element. A software bug.
Software bugs are a greater threat than just viruses. Windows is a great example of this. Flawed drivers can criple a system in horrific ways. A flaw in the kernel can crash the system at a critical time.
For that reason GNU/Linux takes software defects very sereously.
It is the antivirus software companys that insist Linux isn't virus resistant. That Linux must take viruses sereously. What they really mean is that Linux users should buy anti-virus software.

How effective would this software be on Linux when there are better alterntives.

There is right now a number of Linux worms and trojens. Where is the anti virus software?
Not nessisary. Fix the security flaws and you'll be fine.

As for firewalls. Yes please but not for the viruses or even the worms.
Hardware firewalls to block hackers. Software firewalls are worthless.
Worms use defects in the protocals you use. You'll open ports in the firewall to permit lagit access and the worms will slide right through them.

Linux was created in the early 1990s based on the Unix design of the 1960s.

First part of this myth is that hackers want access to home users computers not the large Unix servers.

The point of hacking was (and still is) to gain access to the high end computers. Most of them ran Unix or Unix based operating systems.

Trojens and viruses are the ultimat means of hacking into any given computer. If it was truely as easy to make a Unix virus as it is to make a PC virus then every hacker would have at least two Unix viruses in his or her toolkit long before the creation of Dos.

The second part of the myth is that Linux hasn't been around "long enough".
It was only a handful of months after Dos receaved the ability to multitask in the background. At this point in time the vast majority of home users still had Commodore 64s, Apple IIs and other 6502 or 8080 based computers.
IBM PCs were still primaraly small to medium sized business machines.

The viruses were created for and targeted at BBSes. Only a tiny handful of people were expected to be infected. However the viruses were far more powerful than expected.

Linux was already a decade old and had a larger userbase than Dos did when the first clames of Linux being too young.

Now Linux runs on nearly all the servers (the target of every hacker), Linux is older than Dos was, Linux has a larger userbase than Dos did.

Also there were viruses for the Amiga, Atart ST and other platforms that died due to lack of sales.

Size and age weren't the desiding facters.
The ONLY factor involed in the creation of a virus is the possability.

This is annother argument I won't pretend this is the end all.

First to introduce the players (as I see them)

Virus experts: Experts in name only they have no better understanding of viruses than anyone else.
Thies are people who proffit from the sale of anti-virus software.

Unix experts: Not security experts. Experts in how Unix works. The first people to clame Unix is imperveous to viruses.

Security experts: Experts in the security field. Has nothing to do with the virus industry.

What is a virus: A virus is a program that sneaks into your computer by piggybacking on other software.
Once in your system the virus installs itself into other programs on your system.

Unix immunity: Unix software is installed into a secured area of the hard disk. From this area programs can be run but not modifed.

The security defect: There is the argument that a virus could use a security defect to infect a Unix computer. This has been demonstrated and dose work.

However this means the virus has a short window of time when it may infect a computer.
This is very much like the short window of time a virus may infect an antivirus protected system.

With Unix a virus may strike anytime before the defect becomes known. Once the defect is known the virus is nolonger able to infect.
With Windows a virus may strike any system before the virus is known. Once the virus is known the virus may still strike any system not protected by antivirus software.

The defect permitting the virus may be cought and fixed before the virus is known however if it isn't once the virus is known the defect is also known and will be fixed before antivirus software has a chance to make any diffrence.

In short Unix security provides far suppereor protection against viruses than antivirus software. Enough so to make creating Unix viruses far more work than they are worth.

Unix security vs antivirus for protecting against worms.

Worms reguardless of Unix or Windows require a significant software defect to happen.

Antivirus software can not prevent worms from infecting the system and once infected the worm can disable the antivirus software.

Under a properly secured Unix system if a worm dose slip into the system it will likely have restricted access and will be unable to do much damage. Rebooting often flushes the worm from the system.

Also a worm dose it's worst inside an hour of being first release long before a bugfix or signture can be released.

In short Not only do Unix systems have a solution for Unix viruses it's a far better solution than using antivirus software.

Should that change the is already open source antivirus software. Just in case.
Besides windows e-mail infections pass through Unix e-mail servers. There is no better way to deal with e-mail infections than antivirus software. Especally before the e-mail can reach the Windows user.

I'm just posting this to get things off my chest.
Nothing more nothing less.

Back around 2001 I started RPing on a message board for fans of the online comic "Master Zen Dao Meow" I was one of the few people doing some light roleplaying there.
I created a furry character (later called an avatar) to interact with the characters taken directly from the comic (and RPed by Pat who writes the comic).

The message board evolved into a full blown role play community and Pat clames I've played a major role in this. I think he overstates the matters.

In short after RPing on what is now called "The Dream" with zero complaints you could say I'm familure with the rules.

About November 2003 some of the new artists to the team have desided I'm breaking the rules. The artist is misquoting the rules. It gets strange enough I deside to leave chat and calm down.

When I return annother artist (someone I've never seen before and didn't even know was an artest) starts on me.
I attempt to resolve the issue but that person won't even tell me what is wrong so I drop a note with someone in charge so we can resolve it. The artist in question tells the moderators nothing happend.

In the months that folowed I'm being taunted by annother artist. A friend of the first two.

After about a year of harrasment someone brings up the issue of trolls and how to get rid of them. I bring up there is only one troll and we shouldn't get rid of her.
The first artist shows and clames I'm trying to get rid of the trolling arist.

So I try to sell off my characters. If they are as valuable as Pat clames they should fetch a pritty penny. I sure as hell don't want to be around there any longer.
So the artist who started all this starts accusing me of doing this 3 times before[1]. She says she told me before it was breaking the rules to do so. That is a lie. She also repeates the clame I'm trying to push her friend of the forum that is also a lie.
Pat joins and clears things up. He appears very annoyed with everyone involved however. (Me included).
After the badmouthing I pritty much had enough and said so. The troll artist folows up by trying to put words in my mouth and make me out to be saying I'm leaving becouse of what Pat said when I've made it pritty clear I'm leaving becouse of her ongoing harrasment.
I realise she's just flinging crap just to fling crap and there is no point in responding to her BS so I ignore her.
Later on Pat locks the thread. It's annoying him.

[1] First time I tried to sell my avatar I only asked if it was possable.
Pat said no. But the wording lead me to beleave he felt only I could handle my characters not that it was actually against the rules.
Second time I wasn't even talking about selling avatars. I was talking about trying to make money to pay my bills. The artist that started this joinned the thread and started trash talking for no apparent reason. I ignored her.
She derailed the thread enough to make it appear this was the second attempt. My long winded post didn't help much so nobody read what I said and instead went on her much shorter trash talk to figure out what I want.
As such I got some very good advice with reguards to my avatar but that really had nothing to do with the issue.
The third time I just came out and tryed to sell the characters and all the rights to same.
Two of the three artists joinned and started trash talking me. Patric clarifed the rules and explained he wasn't going to enforce them.
With that I was pritty well done.

This is what I think really happend.
Pat made a big deal about my involvement with the dream from the very start. This ticked off some of the new artists.
A few months later I'm in a RP with one of thies artists and she starts making like I don't know the rules.

or

Even before I joinned the dream I was "The Evil Ranter" posting my conservitive opinions on an otherwise libral message board.
I was ruining somebodys libral paradise.

or

I don't RP her way and she can not handle it.

or

Somebody discribed her as a lousy artist. I'm not one of the offical artists but I do draw a lot.
The offical artists are paid.
I hope this isn't the reason. All the offical arists (including the obnoxous treo) are better than I am.
It would really suck if the three artist were driving off any artist who didn't suck and mistook me as one one of them. Maybe confused me and Rose (rose being the first offical arist besides Pat and Bret. She drew two of my characters)

With current politics I felt the need to plaster my wishes reguarding life support.

This is to be found on Slashdot, Live Journal and maybe Deviant art (if I feel like it)
There will be a more refined legal document eventually but for now this is the quick and dirty.

If a device is used to sustain my life by preforming the tast of my internal organs and this device dose not fit inside my body or otherwise portable then it should be said that I am not self sustaining.

If my brain is not sending impluses to my body and a device is needed to instruct my heart and lugs to continue to function then I have eather chousen to terminate internal life support or I am no longer in this body. In eather case this mean I am no longer self sustaining.

If I am not animate in that I do not move of my own accord and I am not self sustaining then please discontinue the effort to maintain my body.

On death donate my body to science. The plants have enough fertaliser. Artifical organs are becomming commen place. However for scientific research nothing can beat a real body.

Some people like to pick apart the whole "Microsoft is evil" type rant showing how other operating systems do in fact share the same problems found in Windows and other Microsoft products.
The reality is that it's not 1 or 2 problems that make Microsoft evil but the whole pacage.

Microsoft as a monopoly isn't evil. It's undesirable. Os flaws aren't evil they are undesirable. Every complaint isn't evil they alone are undesirable.
Linux has a few undesirable trates so dose MacOs. The Commodore 64, Amiga, Atari ST. There isn't a single system that has ever been on the market that didn't have an undesirable trate.

The Farchild game console Channel F would burn out after so many hours. That is VERY undesirable. Then what? Buy a new Channel F? Not nessisary you could buy anything. No monpoly.

IBM had a near stranglehold on the mainframe industry. But IBM did make reasonably good systems. People had complaints but they did the job.

EA pulled that nifty stunt on the Atari ST buying up all the Atari titles and re-releasing them for the Amiga. But the Amiga was a nice machine and that did EA more damage to themselfs than anyone would like to admit. Also it sure didn't help Amiga any and Atari did themselfs in before EA could do any real damage to Atari.

Every stunt Microsoft pulled was done before. But that hardly makes it ok. I'll forgive Linux for not being user friendly not like it effects me and others will forgive MacOs for being bloated they want the power that results from it not the raw uncut CPU power that comes from streamlining.

Tradeoffs.

But Windows isn't trading off. It's just slapping stuff on and not doing any real work to fix the problems already in place.

Microsoft has an industry of excuses and this is one undesirable trate nobody forgives.

So the end it's not one mistake or one undesirable trate. We could pick and pick and pick. But the shear body of it all is the problem.
Microsoft Windows has a few desirable trates and has a few fans. We should respect that.

However I have one retort to the whole clame "If Linux was as populare as Windows it would have the same problems" There is no reacurence to show this. Windows is unqiue in it's problems where as other platforms had the majority spotlight only Windows had the problems.
No I have two... If Windows lost the spotlight it would die. Microsoft relys on the 90% markeshare to keep Windows alive.

Linux drivers are chipset driven Windows drivers are product driven. If 10% of the PC hardware produced today didn't have Windows drivers Microsoft would be in a world of hurt. Linux was alive and well at only 10% driver support. Maybe someday Linux will have full covrage with EVERY card manufacter making a Linux driver. But Windows couldn't survive with anything less than 100% support.

Fact is before Linux would reach a point where it would have clueless users, viruses or anything else that pleages only Windows users Linux would need at least 45% marketshare. Windows would never survive it and to be totally honnest I don't think Linux would ever make it.
The market will be fragmented between OSes. Linux is just one OS. I don't think anyone had 90% marketshare before and maybe they are right about the "popularity" thing.
Linux thrives on fragmentation. BSD users almost demand it. Unix needs it.

It's all about tradeoffs. Everyone has undesirable trates and so long as that is the case just make sure the product you use dosen't have the trates that are undesirable to you.
If you can.

Can you find the software tools you need on a platform that preforms the way you want?
Today the answer is no. Windows has the tools you need as dose Linux but nither preform the way YOU want.
Unless your not in need of a user friendly environment or willing to baby the computer.

Something I've known for a long time is that the user interface a person starts off with is the one he will try to stick with.
Once a user becomes experenced he dosen't need a user friendly system anymore. Most people who try Linux and switch back becouse it's "not user friendly" wouldn't know.
The real complaint they have is that the experence they have with Windows is worthless.

I however came to Linux from Dos.. Annother command line. While Dos was a CP/M clone Bill Gates looked to Unix for ideas to improve Dos when making MsDos 2.
Dos has quite a bit in commen with the Unix command line.
Switching from Dos to Unix is remarkably simple.

More recently I've been required to use Windows at work. I know what user friendly is like I've used user friendly operating systems. Windows is NOT user friendly.

Here is the trick. Grab new users and teach them to use Windows before they get a chance to even look at Linux. When those users then look at Linux what happends? "Oh my ghod it's so hard".
It's not any diffrent from what you experenced when you were a new user on Windows however now your an experenced user expecting to just slip into a new system and guess what? Not gona happen.

When you first started using Windows did you know how to point and click?
If Yes continue If no skip to end.
When you first started using Linux did you know how to type on the keyboard?
If Yes continue If no.. Your a lier.

Using the mouse and using the keyboard are both basic functionality of the computer. Eather both are obveous or you have to learn both.

A lot of people complained that keyboards were hard. Thies people are just being difficult.
There are also people who clame the single button mouse is too difficult.. I kid you not. Long usenet threads back when most people still used keyboards and command lines.

Obscure commands? Who here knew what the Windows icons were for?
To start a program in Linux type in the name of the program and hit enter. Oh my brain that is SOO HARD.
To start a program in Windows click the start icon. The one at the bottom of the screen. No bottom left.. Not my left your left. Got it? Now click it.
Now click programs. No the folder named programs. Ok your new so you have no idea what a folder is just click on the word "programs".
Now look for the program you want.
Umm most are in the other folders. Click on the topics and look around and maybe you'll find it.
Happy hunting.

Yes now THAT is user friendly.

(head hits table)

And as has been said 1,000 times by people who do NOT like Linux "users just want to run there programs".
Yep.. and it's braindead easy to do that in Linux.

If you don't like using the command line to manage your files use a file manager.

The only thing left is installing software.
I still download and compile but again I'm familure with the command line and it's just easier for me.
But if your GUI inclined you can use RPMs.. they suck eggs and I'm not exactly supprised users find them hard. They aren't hard they are stupid. When an RPM dosen't work there isn't more to know. They don't work. Thats normal. Hay you wanted the Windows experence didn't you? I've had the same with Windows often.
DEBs work better.

When I use Windows I download a Unix envrionment and I'm happy.
Becouse Unix got to me first. (Actually an AT&T 3B2-300).
In addition to not actually being user friendly Windows is programmer hostile. This has nothing to do with the GUI/Command line thing. Linux ships with a complete set of software dev tools Windows ships devoid of same.
My options are to install a Unix environment or pay large sums of money for the software dev tools.
The problem with installing a Unix environment is unless your like me (and came from Unix to start with) your totally disorented by having to use Unix to develup Windows software. It still disorents me to some degree.
Also Microsofts APIs don't work right so it takes a little bit of trial and error to make it all work.
Linux APIs are well documented and work correctly (as a rule).
When a Windows API is broken don't bother Microsoft they won't fix it.
When a Linux API is broken inform the develupers. If you can fix it yourself. If nessissary hunt down a diffrent set of libarys.

One of the often made clames is that Linux is hard to install. Of course Windows is easier.. anything is easy when you leave it to an expert.

The actual problem is newer versions of Windows (post 95) are easy to install but they make this easy by overwriting your hard disk.
If you have an operating system already installed and wish to preserve it your screwed once you install Windows 2000 or XP.
Linux however bends over backwards to preserve your Windows FS.
However the newer user friendly Linux destros permit you to just let the install replace everything and then they become pritty much no diffrent from the Windows counterpart except that your installing all your drivers and applications all at once where as with Windows installing the OS is just the first phase. Then you install all the drivers and HOPE they work. Then you install the applications. Then you restore your data.

I back up my data to CD rom but often I'm able to compleate an install with out actually having to restore my data as I'm able to get the vareous Installs to NOT format my home drive partition (where all my data is).
I don't recomend this but it is something an experenced Linux user can pull off.

What we need isn't to make Linux user friendly. We SHOULD make Linux user friendly that isn't even comming close to helping us compeate with Microsoft.
We NEED to catch the new users before they learn "The Microsoft way"

Nearly every debate on Slashdot falls for one of the traps discribed in this <a href="http://mywebpages.comcast.net/reasoning/critthink/classes/class11.htm">class on falsitys</a>.
I'm reluctent to post this as it kills most of my arguments and it will kill many more of my arguments.
However being aware is more important than being "right" (Or thought of as right even when dead wrong).

Ok I admit I'm a Zealot so I guess it's no biggy deal.

A fun game. I know we Zealots are known to fail to think it's part of the deffinition of the term... To act on emotions and not thought.
But I want you to spot how often trainned "experts" do exactly the same things we do and fall for the same traps.

What of the folowing is true and what is false?
Amiga is dead, Macs are for newbies, Linux is hard, Windows is useless.

The answer is: All are nither.

Amiga:
Amiga made a number of computers and when they hit hard times that company died and was bought out by Commodore who sold the latest creation under the name "Amiga 1000".
However Commodore was also facing hard times and puked.
The Amiga name has been passed from company to company and is now owned by a company who has desided to continue the Amiga legacy as software.

However the Amiga lives on supported by the users. The vareous companys that made Amigas have died.

Macintosh:
At the time Apple created the Macintosh most business people had no computer trainning.
The Macintosh was designed for this group of individuals.
Reporters, Secretarys, Accountents, Managers.. the vast majorty of whom knew nothing of computers.
In order for the Macintosh to be useful to thies people it needs to be easy AND preform all the complex tasks of powerful business systems of the day.
While most people run businesses from the PC they use software that was originally writen for the mac or based on existing Macintosh titles.
As a net result what your doing on Windows right now is not only doable on the Mac but is most likely a whole lot easier.

Linux:
Linux wasn't designed as the Mac was. In that I mean it was never made to be used by people who have no trainning in computers.
People familure with Windows have a hard time getting use to Linux.
However this happeds with no other platform. Users of MacOs, OS/2, AmigaOs and Dos have made a smooth transition to Linux but a growing number of Windows users haven't.

Eather there is a fundemental diffrence between Linux and Windows that can be found no where else or Windows users are at bulk assuming everything runs like Windows.

Windows:
Microsoft is pushing Windows into more and more market sectors than ever before.
However Windows itself has remained fundementally the same sense the beginning.
As a result Windows is being sold to do things it can not do or can't do very well.
This leaves a growing number of users the impression Windows is useless. In fact Windows is quite useful but no operating system is anywhere near as fuctional as Microsoft clames Windows is.

Windows for Warships?
Linux is the only "off the shelf" os vagely close to being able to do the job and that is becouse Linux can be rewriten and can run on any hardware but it is no better than using specalised operating systems or operating systems designed with automation in mind.

However Windows works quite well for a number of tasts. As a media/content client system (such as web browsing and video games) Windows has no match.

Pk you'd expect such a comment from a Slashdot user. I mean it's a no-brainner that a Linux Zelot like me would think this.
So how could this jernal entry be anything but redundent?

Simple: I have proof.
Remember that ohh so wonderful Microsoft "Get the facts about Linux" the second time Microsoft pulled this.

Well... I just saw the banner ads. ON SLASHDOT. After Slashdot ripped it to hell.
How stupid can you get?

I guess Microsoft has the money to blow.
So thanks for funding Slashdot...

We can debate to hell and back about the details of the two websites. The only point I'm making is Microsoft actually believes advertsing on Slashdot is going to earn them converts.

Eather you believe that Slashdot readers are hard headed SlashBot idiots who wouldn't know inovation if it slapped them accrost the skull
or you believe Microsoft is full of themselfs.

Most people seam to think both.. But thats annother deal.

But to think Microsoft could win over Slashdot users with it's "Facts" website is an act of total idiotcy.

While walking home from work I come to one of those crosswalks where the light says "walk" just long enough to step off the curve.
Halfway accrost this idiot steps up to the light and starts pointing in the air looking at me with this big grin on his face.
I'm like "What in hell" untill I realise he is pointing at the crosswalk light. Well he is trying to. Actually he is just pointing into the air kind of a side effect of the fact that he himself has no clue what he is doing.

As I walk past him he chirps "good morning" and I mumble "morning" but only becouse he seammed to be ready to get in the way if I didn't acknowladge him.

He reminds me of a brainwashed cultist.
Part of me wanted to punch him in the gutt, part wanted to ask what drugs he was on, part wanted to ask why he was pointing in the air like a moron part of me wanted to point to the light when he crossed.

Why do people feel compelled to tell other people what to do instead of pulling there head out of there butts and see the real world?

Meow BBS is back online. Named during a time when there wasn't much consensis as to what to call thies things.
Taco called em forums, later they got called blogs. A lot of people called em BBSes becouse most of them were just a move from the traditional BBS to a website.
I don't want to call it a blog and 'forum' sutes me for a general discription but in the long run it is was and always will be a BBS to me.

It's nice having a Slashdot jernal however...

You have heard it about as much as I have.
The consistant clame that open source and free software are communist ideas and that monopolists like Microsoft are capitalists.

Communism is simply the idea that everything is regulated by the state and there is no property.
Capitalism is the idea of regulation by free market and all things are property.

Open source and free software is the idea that software should be free and that laws and regulations that make software into property should be abolished.
Should anyone be able to control software or ideas in absence of such laws then he should be free to do so.

Monopolys such as Microsoft seek to use laws to restrict compeating companys.
They do not believe in the free market and desire laws to control information at the same time they break such laws to benifit themselfs.

Microsoft is as much communist as it is capitalist and the GPL community is as much capitalist as it is communist.

The fact is open source and free software is taking the issue from a compleatly diffrent angle and the classic lables are simply obsolete.

Open source is preticularly capitalistic much to the annoyence of the free software community but as we seek a commen goal it matters not.

This remains true of the commertal software community. There are monopolists such as Microsoft and the entruprenual such as Apple. Steve Woz and Bill Gates both seek to use the laws to control but act in totally diffrent behavures.
Steve Woz believes in the entriprenual aspect. Let inovation lead develupment then control your works. Woz would never object to a home computer with an Apple like design should it be devoid of apple compatability software such as Apples ROMs and DOS.
Bill Gates believes in the monopolistic aspect. Any way you can make people pay for your software is ok.

A better way to slice it is libertarianism vs corpratism.

The consept that we are better off with out laws or at least most laws. Legal minimalism.
Vs the consept of the government is there to protect all aspects of life. Or at least most aspects of life. Full legal involvment.

"Free Enterprise" "Free Speach" and "Free software" aren't multially exclusive. They are uniform. One falls they all fall.

"Free Enterprise" is not a garenty to proffits only the freedom to try.
"Free software" is not a shield against selling software only a protection that reguardless of how the software is distributed the software remains free to be distributed again.
"Free Speach" is not a protection against responsabilitys that come with speach but a garenty that you shall not be jailed for speaking your mind. You may lose your friends, job and respect but you won't go to jail for it.

In todays world you may not discuss how to build certan matereals or preform certan functions in sofware.
While it may be true that doing those things may be illegal for reasonable or obscure reasons the publishing of HOW should never be censored.

In a world that freely admits knowladge is power is not control over that knowladge automaticly a terrany over the masses?

All writings of certan historical figures may be clamed as the intelectual property of the famaly. As such that famaly has absolut control over history and how our kids will learn it. They alone shall deside how the deceased shall be seen.

At least once this frame of ownership over history has been used to sillence a public debate over a related issue.

On more than one occasion the famaly of an individal did not have that individuals best intrests in mind. A single famaly member (usually the child) can rebell in the most extream way beomming a living embodyment of everything the public figure is against.
Should this child come to control the legacy and works of the public figure the damage to history could be illreversable.

Annother example is when a populare public figure turns out to be the villen later in life the famaly may act to supress this fact and sillence historical travistys.